# DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras



## DesignJinni (Jun 19, 2014)

Okay to all the gurus here, I am a bit eager to know to where is this technology going? First, I am not a pro but an enthusiastic photographer like many others out there. Since DSLR’s & glass are expensive, I heard that glass should be where the investment should go. But I find it changing now with the mirroless. Small form factor compared to DSLR body and lenses. Why should I buy more or invest in more lens while mirrorless lens would be the future due to their small form factor. For sure giants telephoto lenses is a different league of its own, so I would exclude those users.

Mostly I hear is that mirrorless is no doubt the future. And with the likes of Fuji XT-1 and Sony full frame mirrorless it so much seems to be true. Fuji system has a great road map for their native lenses and is very popular among many amateur and some pro photographers alike. 

Apart of my concern in which technology of lenses to invest in, i am also confused that if Mirrorless is really the future then why are the likes of Canon and Nikon not serious about it like the way Fuji is? And plus how come Sigma, Canon & Nikon are still releasing fine good lenses and upgrading them?

If I can travel with Fauji XT-1 and some XF lenses such as 35mm1.4, 56mm 1.2, UWA 10-24 F4 OIS, 14mm 2.8 etc then why on earth should I invest in DSLR or these new lenses being released by canon, sigma etc while I get a huge advantage on other things while only sacrificing a very little in quality or any other feature?

Roadmap of Fuji Lens: (pretty neat I would say)
http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Fujifilm-XF-lens-roadmap.jpg

What do you all think, please share your thoughts and shed some light.


----------



## eninja (Jun 19, 2014)

as far as i know. dslr still better in terms of capturing actions, good image quality, built durability and professional ergonomic. 
Thats why i can not justify selling my 6D and getting Fuji Xt1, they almost in the same price right now.


----------



## sanj (Jun 19, 2014)

I just LOVE evf of my Fuji Xe2. It works wonderfully for my needs.


----------



## tat3406 (Jun 19, 2014)

I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price. 
Look at the Fuji lens line up some price is higher than Canon pricing!


----------



## DesignJinni (Jun 19, 2014)

tat3406 said:


> I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price.
> Look at the Fuji lens line up some price is higher than Canon pricing!


If you take out the R&D, the production cost of mirrorless+lenses are way less compared to DSLR and its line up. So in-time mirrorless would get a lot cheaper. Plus as you said performane and quality are very competitve, add the advantages you get in mirroless.

I know Fuji is so far crop APSC but again amazing quality in terms of APSC, online review compare its quality to fullframe sensors. Profesionals with nikon or canon fullframe past, who are using XT-1 are expressing their feelings as if they are reborn again. 

Then again why are sigma, canon releasing new lenses which can be easily overcome by mirrorless technology and it's lineup? Where are things moving towards?


----------



## Max ☢ (Jun 19, 2014)

Hi - DSLR and Mirrorless cameras have all their strengths and weaknesses and the choice of a particular system over the other depends primarily on one's shooting requirements and needs - there's no general rule about which is the best simply because this is a user-specific condition.
If the Fuji X-T1 is certainly extremely convenient and inconspicuous due to its compact size while packing a very impressive performance punch (fantastic EVF, great color rendering, great high ISO noise management, etc) and using superb pro-grade XF optics, a 6D is certainly more satisfactory for people needing higher ISO performances and shallower depth of field for e.g. portrait works. It’s all about weighing the pros and cons of each system in the light of personal requirements.

As Canikon and mirroless systems, I think the reason for their apparent lack of innovation in this field stems primarily from what both companies consider as a good-enough technology point threshold beyond which the new camera systems will become successful (and profitable) on the mass consumer and pro markets. While Fuji and Sony have no problem releasing mirrorless cameras with AF performances lagging well below those of DSLR cameras (and not to mention the very shorter battery life), I think Canon and Nikon will phase out the mirror box only when they will achieve an economically-viable mirrorless proposition featuring performances and specs equal or superior to the DSLR they replace. This is the condition needed to ensure market growth and profitability by enticing photographers en masses to make the switch from their mirrorflappers to modern mirrorless systems.
As opposed to Fuji, Sony and the m43 crowd, Canikon are the two largest camera manufacturers and hold the largest fraction of the photo market. Any forced transition to mirrorless will inevitably result in the cannibalization of their DSLR sales across the consumer and pro markets and may hurt their bottom line, so they have to be extra careful in this process if they don’t want to lose a lot during the transition. Therefore, they cannot afford to cut many corners with the new technology and you can be sure that when they finally introduce mirrorless offerings in the xD range, their products will be quite awesome – but this might take a while still...
There’s an interesting blog post from Roger Cicala on the overall matter of technology disruption which is worth reading: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/02/disruption-and-innovation#more-17135

As for me, yesterday I received my X-T1 and XF 10-24/4 OIS and I was really blown away by the overall build and image qualities of this system. While the battery life in certainly not impressive, I can go around more easily with two extra batteries on me than with my 6D + EF/L lenses. As for high ISO peformances, the 6D is of course surperior but not by a large margin. The X-T1 manages noise impressively well, even more details are retained in the photos at ISO 6400+ that in my 6D! Moroever, I find the X system more handhold-able that the 6D and for some reason I can get a higher keeper rate at very low shutter speeds (1 sec) on my X-T1 than on the 6D+EF35/2 IS at the same ISO and f/ setting, and that more that compensates for the difference in high ISO rendering between the two systems.
In terms of performances and capability, the X-T1 has definitely reached my "good-enough" requirement point for my style of shooting (landscape, street, product...), and I'll definitely start selling my much heavier L lenses to fund the purchase of other XF lenses. I find it a pity that canon has no pro-grade offerings for EF-M and EF-S systems, all the top EF glasses (i.e. with the highest build and optical qualities) are the heavier and larger (and more expensive) FF L lenses - that's also why I'll switch to Fuji as they don't force their APS-C users to settle with cheap plasticy compromises of lens when they need compactness and low weight.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 19, 2014)

tat3406 said:


> I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price.
> Look at the Fuji lens line up some price is higher than Canon pricing!



I dunno EOS-M and EF-M lenses are pretty good value...


----------



## Jamesy (Jun 19, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> tat3406 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price.
> ...



+1 and they feel way better than the typical 'kit' lenses you find in the Canon APS-C line-up.


----------



## rs (Jun 19, 2014)

For your needs now, it depends upon what you want.

Are the current generation EVF's good enough for you, or will only OVF's do?

And then as for the size of the body and the lenses, yes, mirrorless are typically smaller. But once you get over the more extreme retrofocus lens design required on wide angle lenses to accommodate the mirror assembly, there really isn't much in it with like for like lenses.

If you want to have the best low light performance and/or a really shallow depth of field, there's only one way to get it - a lens with a huge entrance pupil. That means the glass will be equally big on either system - and something the size of an 85L on a tiny m43 body doesn't make much sense. There again, if you only have lenses the size the 40/2.8, a smaller body with an equivalent lens (if a 20/1.4 pancake existed) might make a lot more sense.

And as for which system will be around in the future and worth sinking your money into, look at sales of DSLR's vs mirrorless. DSLR's seem to be a lot more buoyant right now. And then also look at how some manufacturers are willing to drop mounts, leaving people with a load of expensive lenses and no new bodies. For example, Panasonic/Olympus with four thirds, Samsung with the K mount (although Pentax still use that), and Sony look set to drop the A mount. Yes, Canon did it back in '87, but they look set to stick with the EF mount long term.

Obviously it's your choice, but after a lot of careful deliberation I did what almost everyone else on this forum has done - invested my money into the Canon system.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 19, 2014)

DesignJinni said:


> And plus how come Sigma, Canon & Nikon are still releasing fine good lenses and upgrading them?



Because there are still a lot of people, with money, who still own SLR cameras. As long as there are potential customers with money, the companies will continue to sell lenses for the "old" SLR systems.



> why on earth should I invest in DSLR or these new lenses being released by canon, sigma etc while I get a huge advantage on other things while only sacrificing a very little in quality or any other feature?



An excellent question. If you are starting over, and mirrorless systems provide what you need/want, then there is no real reason why you should not go mirrorless. If, on the other hand, you don't want to start over (you already have a lot of good glass) or mirrorless does not provide what you need/want, then you should not go mirrorless.

Like everything else in photography, there is no best for everyone. Everything in photography (and in life) is a compromise. It is up to each consumer to decide what is important and not so important for *them*.


----------



## CaiLeDao (Jun 19, 2014)

I also expect the mirror less market to replace a large section of the dslr market. I recently bought a Sony A7R as both the IQ and size was attractive, also of course a metabones adaptor so I could use my current lenses.

Sony having embarked on the brave new mirror less world I found a few flaws, that render these quite inflexible at present, nothing that won't get fixed but I really made me realise how multi role the good DSLR's are and the maturity is brilliant at present.

The issues I had were quite simple
Real issues getting a remote shutter cable I can plug into third party timers (had to make one, so clearly supported)
Couldn't zoom display to manually focus an EF tse 24.
Shutter cause real vibration problems and needs two tripods to use with lenses above 100mm ( one lens, one for the body so a dlsr end up being more portable and lighter.)

I will happily move back to a mirrorless body when the body gains the quality of a good dslr and the richness of third party connectors. Maybe that will be an m2 or an A7R 2, but I have for the time being said goodbye to mirrorless in the short term.


----------



## tat3406 (Jun 20, 2014)

DesignJinni said:


> tat3406 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price.
> ...



If you said* the production cost of mirrorless+lenses are way less compared to DSLR *, why fuji x-series is more expensive than Canon crop-frame-series? 

70d ($999)vs XT-1($1299)
T5i with kit($749) vs XE-2 with kit($1199)
ef-s 60mm($469) vs XF 60mm($649)
ef-s18-135($549) vs XF 18-135($899)
ef-s 10-22($599) vs XF10-24($999)
ef-s 55-250($349) vs XF 55-200($599)
ef-s 18-55($249) vs XF 18-55($599)
(above price is take from B&H retail price)

DSLR or Mirrorless have their own pro & con, but in term of price, canon is cheaper than fujifilm.
Fujifim have interesting prime lens line up, this is only shortage canon havent built enough ef-s prime for their crop body.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jun 20, 2014)

honestly, i do love fuji cameras. however, either one of the following will work:

1. if one are willing to learn about photography and have fun with all its challenges , dslr with optical viewfinder would be the camera he/she should buy, or
2. if one WOULD NOT LIKE to learn about photography, then a mirror-less camera should be the one that he/she will pick up since:
a. you get what you see which is, to me, no challenge and fun, and
b. ease of use (even a kid can get a right exposure after less than an hour of learning.)

if i have to buy a mirror-less so that my wife can also use, fuji x-pro1 or fuji x100s will be the one that i am going to buy since i think it does offer, sort of, optical viewfinder. fuji xt-1 (my friend lets me use his for few times) is a wonderful camera, but too bad, it does not offer optical viewfinder like the other two... hopefully fuji offers both again in the future...

it is just my personal thought and i am not a pro either...


----------



## sanj (Jun 20, 2014)

ishdakuteb said:


> honestly, i do love fuji cameras. however, either one of the following will work:
> 
> 1. if one are willing to learn about photography and have fun with all its challenges , dslr with optical viewfinder would be the camera he/she should buy, or
> 2. if one WOULD NOT LIKE to learn about photography, then a mirror-less camera should be the one that he/she will pick up since:
> ...



I feel differently. Photography is about photography. It is not about the difficulty with which photos are taken. Photography to me is capturing beauty, telling stories. I am impressed by photos, not with the technique with which the photo was taken unless the technique itself is creating magic.


----------



## meson1 (Jun 20, 2014)

On the one hand I understand that the EOS-M takes advantage of mirrorless technology to produce a camera that is more compact. However, I feel the drawback is that it needs it's own special line of lenses.

I think Canon should also be producing a mirrorless camera that can use it's regular EF lenses. Essentially it would be a DPAF APS-C or FF sensor camera with a built-in EVF replacing the usual pentaprism and packaged in a body that is similar to other EOS DSLRs.

It wouldn't be more compact, but it would have a similar feel and handling as it's contemporary consumer and professional cameras for which Canon is so renowned and celebrated.


----------



## rs (Jun 20, 2014)

meson1 said:


> On the one hand I understand that the EOS-M takes advantage of mirrorless technology to produce a camera that is more compact. However, I feel the drawback is that it needs it's own special line of lenses.
> 
> I think Canon should also be producing a mirrorless camera that can use it's regular EF lenses. Essentially it would be a DPAF APS-C or FF sensor camera with a built-in EVF replacing the usual pentaprism and packaged in a body that is similar to other EOS DSLRs.
> 
> It wouldn't be more compact, but it would have a similar feel and handling as it's contemporary consumer and professional cameras for which Canon is so renowned and celebrated.



Are you talking Pentax K01 or one of the many Sony DSLT's?


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jun 20, 2014)

sanj said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > honestly, i do love fuji cameras. however, either one of the following will work:
> ...



totally agree with you on "...is capturing beauty, telling stories". but "...impressed by photos" is not quite if without techniques. if i say that all i care is the result of addition/subtraction/multiplication/division problems and do not care about the ability of solving the problems without calculator, would you agree? i think that is the reason why nikon come up with its ads "PURE PHOTOGRAPHY" (note: i am not trying to advertise for nikon since i am a canon user.)

i certainly believe that a photoshop expert with good imagination can turn a crap image to a stunning image with little of effort. of course, i am talking about a image that is in focus, not out of focus 

about capturing beauty, there are probably easy ways to do it but require a camera offering high quality video (i think)... try to film it with all possible angles and extract a frame that one would think it is best. in this case, one would probably never miss a moment in this case. for example, i have done like the one below multiple times, capturing a frame that i like from a clip and then learn to use photoshop from there when i am busying with my kids but want to have some image to play with (note: done in the past and you probably know where i get it from). however, to have a beauty image from movie frames still require techniques such as using angle and subject matter, isn't it?

however, it is probably not fun to someone else, but it does to me when trying to capture an image within my exposure. adding up, i cannot find an ease for myself if someone, one day, approaches me and ask for help with taking an image with a dslr which has a broken lcd. that is the reason why i always find my time to learn hard in the past two year and half.

after all, there are always funs and challenges of hits and misses of exposures like jay maisel has stated, "who has faith about exposure"... one still miss sometimes, even though he/she is an expert photographer...

below image was extracted from a youtube video:







below is a fun video of showing how to turn regular images to telling story images using photoshop. well, this guy is an EXPERT in ART which also includes photography and photoshop.

Photoshop Live - Street Retouch Prank


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jun 20, 2014)

meson1 said:


> On the one hand I understand that the EOS-M takes advantage of mirrorless technology to produce a camera that is more compact. However, I feel the drawback is that it needs it's own special line of lenses.
> 
> I think Canon should also be producing a mirrorless camera that can use it's regular EF lenses. Essentially it would be a DPAF APS-C or FF sensor camera with a built-in EVF replacing the usual pentaprism and packaged in a body that is similar to other EOS DSLRs.
> 
> It wouldn't be more compact, but it would have a similar feel and handling as it's contemporary consumer and professional cameras for which Canon is so renowned and celebrated.



Canon already produce one. It is called the 100D, and it is a lovely camera that accepts all Canon's EF and EF-S lenses. 
To my mind size is the only advantage that mirrorless cameras have over DSLRs and if you take that away then you end up with no advantages, so why switch? Camera manufacturers such as Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji have realised that they will never be able to compete with Canon and Nikon in the DSLR market so they are trying to persuade consumers that they need something different. They are telling us that if we don't switch then we will be left behind with a "dinosaur" camera. However I am completely happy with my DSLR, I see no need to switch to mirrorless and I am not fooled by all the marketing hype.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 20, 2014)

I agree that mirrorless is the future for most photographers. There are a lot of reasons why Canon hasn't embraced mirrorless cameras, but many of the reasons centre around Canon wanting to continue their dominance in the DSLR market where they enjoy excellent market share and good profitability. 

In many countries, the use of mirrorless cameras is already high. Progressively, over the next 10+ years, as mirrorless cameras continue to improve with AF and EVF/hybrid OVF technology, as more EF-M lenses are announced etc, you'll see a steady shift in other countries, too. With a few more generational improvements, I struggle to imaging where a DSLR will have an advantage. Eventually, we'll reach a point where we'll consider the concept of a flapping mirror in a camera to be a quaint idea held onto by a band of traditionalist purists.

BTW for those comparing Fuji prices, just note that XF lenses are the better quality lenses and probably aren't a direct equivalent to most EF-S lenses. The XC lenses are probably a better comparison. I also see that I can get a Fuji XA-1 with a nice XC 16-50mm lens for $385. A significantly cheaper alternative to any Canon DSLR kit.


----------



## jrista (Jun 20, 2014)

On the first day I took my new 5D III out to photograph birds, another bird photographer came up (discourteously, I might add...I'd just spent 35 minutes getting VERY close (like, less than 15 feet to the closest one...in Colorado, where birds are jittery, that is REALLY close) to some 6 or 7 Night Herons...and he stomped right up and scared the whole lot off, along with a couple egrets and a great blue...and I think a couple ducks). Well, he persisted, stomped right up and sat down next to me. Turned out there was one younger BCNH left, and he hopped a couple trees and ended up right in front of us, about 45 feet out. 

This other photographer had two cameras, both mirrorless, one a small Panasonic Lumix and one a Fuji. He chitchatted about how much he loved 'em, how great they were, etc. We both had 600mm focal lengths, me with my EF 600mm f/4, and the other guy with a small zoom lens that had an FF-effective 600mm focal length, or thereabouts. 

In the end, the smaller sensors of his mirrorless cameras couldn't stand a chance against the 5D III. The slower frame rate, which were between 4-5 fps, did not do as well. The AF system did not lock remotely as fast (it's almost instantaneous with the 600/4II and 5D III), and in both cases with both cameras, he seemed to be using some kind of contrast-detection AF, or perhaps hybrid contrast/phase detection? Either way...it was quite slow, and while decently accurate, not as accurate as the 5D III seemed to be (although I guess that could boil down to technique.)

The only advantage I could really see in the mirrorless was their near-microscopic size...they were both TINY, and in comparison they almost looked like toys to the system I was using. The guy got antsy pretty quick, and was unwilling to stick around...within about 5 minutes he got up and left, but before he did, he mentioned the dozen or so other bird spots he'd tromped through in the park on the way to me. I suspect he tromped through a dozen more, and scared off another couple dozen beautiful subjects, before he finally called it quits. (The guy missed out, too...while in his exit he finally did scare off that one last BCNH, within about 10 minutes after he left, a snowy and a couple more of the night herons came back, and within another 15 minutes proceeded to fish. Mirrorless vs. DSLR...Mirrorless: 0, DSLR: 1)

The moral of the story? If your a discourteous, tromping wannabe who has to keep on the move because your too impatient to set up, sit, and wait for natures beauty to come to you in comfort...then a tiny light weight mirrorless with a tiny light weight lens is probably for you. You won't get the same action-grabbing performance, you won't have the same ergonomics (those mirrorless cams and lenses are TI-NY...like, toy tiny, like, barely fits in your hands tiny...like, WTF am I doing with a TOY with that BEAUIFUL BIG BIRD in front of me?!?!? OMG!), your IQ won't be as good (or maybe it will if you drop some dough on the FF A7r, but then you'll really be suffering on the AF and ergonomics front).

Anyway...mirrorless has it's place. They have their uses and their benefits. But, every time I encounter a die-hard mirrorless user, my experiences tend to be similar to the above. Mirrorless users are ALWAYS on the move. Moving moving moving moving. No patience, no time to wait and let things just happen around you. MOVING. I totally understand why they are fanatics about mirrorless...but wow...slow down and enjoy something, enjoy life happening around you every once in a while!


----------



## tayassu (Jun 20, 2014)

A funny story happened to me yesterday. I was shooting a bike race, when a viewer came to me and started talking about cameras. He told me he recently had sold his Nikon D800 with lots of lenses and got a NEX-7. He said: It works, but there is nothing that can beat SLR's. I agreed and had a wonderful shooting with my bulky 7D and 70-300L.


----------



## troppobash (Jun 20, 2014)

You can learn photography with any camera...obviously on some you learn a lot about the science but on all you can learn the composition.

I recently bought a mirror less g1x mkii and have set it up so it is as close as possible to feel like a dslr well probably more like a slr due to the two rings on the lens.

It is great camera to use and I take it everywhere whereas I do not take my 5dmkii everywhere.

In manual mode it is no different to a dslr with regard to learning about he science of photography.

We need to be less hung up on equipment and be more focused on actually taking photos learning to get the best out of what equipment we have and while hopefully enjoying ourselves immensely


----------



## Zv (Jun 20, 2014)

The way I see mirrorless is that they make an excellent replacement to a point and shoot compact camera not a DSLR. Well not yet anyway. 

Like Jrista says - Enjoy taking pics and slow down a bit. Most good togs will lug a tripod and a full bag of gear because they don't want to compromise. Yes you can get the shot without it but what's point of half arsing something? Do it right or go home! I'm surprised you didn't slap that guy and take his toy camera off him for being a tool and scaring away your subjects! "You'll get this back when you learn how to act like a photographer!" ;D


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 21, 2014)

DesignJinni said:


> Okay to all the gurus here, I am a bit eager to know to where is this technology going? First, I am not a pro but an enthusiastic photographer like many others out there. Since DSLR’s & glass are expensive, I heard that glass should be where the investment should go. But I find it changing now with the mirroless. Small form factor compared to DSLR body and lenses. Why should I buy more or invest in more lens while mirrorless lens would be the future due to their small form factor. For sure giants telephoto lenses is a different league of its own, so I would exclude those users.



Mirrorless cameras change very little. The Canon mirrorless mount uses a shorter flange distance, which allows ultra-wide-angle lenses to be smaller, but at a significant cost as soon as you need a lens that isn't one of the small handful of EF-M lenses currently on the market, both because of the clumsiness of an adapter and because of the inherent loss in IQ caused by doubling the maximum amount of mount sag.

And if they built a mirrorless camera with a traditional EF mount (which I'd expect them to do if they ever built a full-frame mirrorless), then nothing changes at all lens-wise.




DesignJinni said:


> Mostly I hear is that mirrorless is no doubt the future. And with the likes of Fuji XT-1 and Sony full frame mirrorless it so much seems to be true. Fuji system has a great road map for their native lenses and is very popular among many amateur and some pro photographers alike.



Mirrorless is certainly one possible future. For the time being, it brings significant tradeoffs, though. For one, electronic viewfinders aren't fun to work with at night, because they instantly bleach the rhodopsin in your eye and wreck your eye's dark adaptation for about half an hour. 




DesignJinni said:


> Apart of my concern in which technology of lenses to invest in, i am also confused that if Mirrorless is really the future then why are the likes of Canon and Nikon not serious about it like the way Fuji is? And plus how come Sigma, Canon & Nikon are still releasing fine good lenses and upgrading them?



Two reasons. First, Canon and Nikon have an established camera business. Fuji... mostly made film and videotapes. It takes time for deeply entrenched businesses to change direction. Second, the technology is good enough for the average user, but lots of pros don't care for it. Fuji is starting out building a camera business from the consumer end, and eventually, they'll probably start eating significantly into the pro camera market. That's the point at which Canon and Nikon should start to care about mirrorless. Wait longer, and they'll be in trouble. Jump too soon, and they'll expend a lot of efforts on market failures like Canon's current mirrorless offerings.




DesignJinni said:


> If I can travel with Fauji XT-1 and some XF lenses such as 35mm1.4, 56mm 1.2, UWA 10-24 F4 OIS, 14mm 2.8 etc then why on earth should I invest in DSLR or these new lenses being released by canon, sigma etc while I get a huge advantage on other things while only sacrificing a very little in quality or any other feature?



High ISO. The Fuji system uses crop sensors exclusively, AFAIK, whereas most of Canon's lenses are designed to accommodate full-frame sensors in their higher end cameras. For indoor shooting, that extra bit of surface area makes a huge difference.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 23, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> DesignJinni said:
> 
> 
> > If I can travel with Fauji XT-1 and some XF lenses such as 35mm1.4, 56mm 1.2, UWA 10-24 F4 OIS, 14mm 2.8 etc then why on earth should I invest in DSLR or these new lenses being released by canon, sigma etc while I get a huge advantage on other things while only sacrificing a very little in quality or any other feature?
> ...



As far as most image quality attributes go, images produced with Fuji cameras are essentially indistinguishable from Canon 16mp FF sensors. The only significant difference is the extra degree of background blur that is possible with the FF sensor. But this is where is gets really interesting. The Fuji lenses are very nice. They are also fairly sharp wide open. I'll throw it out there - does anyone really use the Canon 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 wide open when they are seeking sharp images? I suspect not many. But you can use the Fuji lenses wide and get very nice results. The Fuji lenses also produce nicer bokeh. Given that you might be more likely to use the Fuji lenses at wider apertures than comparable Canon lenses, even the background blur argument probably results in a tie. 

The key benefit of the Canon system is that there is such a wide variety of cameras, lenses and accessories available. There are also a lot of specialised equipment such as tilt/shift lenses, fish eye zooms, big white lenses etc that many manufacturers don't have. Compared to Fuji, the Canon flash systems is noticeably more advanced. Most camera/lens combinations will focus faster. And if you are into sports and wildlife, shooting with Fuji is an exercise in frustration. For many reasons, Canon is the sensible choice.

Still, I bought into the Fuji system, and while acknowledging its many weaknesses, for everyday photography, I think it is awesome.

I read the comments above about mirrorless wildlife shooters with a smile on my face. I'm sure those people exist. But I suspect most people buying mirrorless cameras are more experienced photographers who are realistic about their expectations. As long as you don't believe any of the hype about "world's fastest AF", but understand that AF speed is fine for things that aren't moving fast, you can't go wrong.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2014)

Canon created a film camera with a half silvered mirror, the Pellix long ago, it was a flop. Then, the tried again 20 or so years later with the RT, again a flop. They tried a third time with the EOS M, again a flop.
Being a flop (meaning they did not sell well, hardly at all) is not a reflection on the quality, just that a business needs products that sell.

Nikon also took a big hit with their J series mirrorless.

That does not mean that all is lost, but for large sensors, getting fast autofocus is much more difficult than it is for small sensors. I believe that the right technology is coming, maybe in the next generation, but its not easy to do.


----------



## vscd (Jun 23, 2014)

Mirrorless is a trend, it has no (kicking) advantages in itself. On theory the bodies could be build smaller... practically the bodies of existing systems won't get small as the focal flange is the same. So, you need at least a new bayonett and lense-system which is causing you a lot of problems for existing accessoires.

So, as a photocompany you could invest in a new lens-system, let's say a mirrorless EF like the EF-M, but with fullframe lenses possible. The advantage is to get your lenses more closer to the sensor... yepp, nice idea, but what about refraction of light? You have to get the ray mostly straight to the sensor. Sony somewhat shows us that they failed on the A7/A7R. Maybe shaped sensors will be a solution. 

So, what are the drawbacks of mirrorless? You aren't able to use the camera if turned off in most cases... so you rely on live view which drains your battery and heats up the sensor. The formfactor of a smaller body is something which I like on holydays but hate while working serious. You may laugh, but a Fuji is to small for me... you don't have back/frontfocus. On this point I'm in, but you have liveview on actual DSLRs, too.

Don't believe the hype. It's a nice idea for smaller Crop-Sensors with new bayonetts... but nothing for a serious fullframe-cam, except a fixed lense (like the Sony RX-1). Even the framerate is nothing to be concerned 'bout, anymore. For me, the work with an optical viewfinder is still the best choice, even good EVF have something like a "DriveByWire". You won't see this on the photo, but for me the future is a mirror/EVF Combination. I would like to see the data projected to the mirror if i need them.

The Fuji-Cams are nice indeed. Fuji prooved for ages that they're capable of doing the finest hardware around, but on the other hand... the fanboys are getting booring. Yepp, the 56mm 1.2 is a hell of a lense, but creating a standard-prime around that focal length with a APS-C lightcircle... is not really that hard. Even not with that pricetag given. Creating a 85mm 1.2 is somewhat harder. And stopped down to the equiv-DOF (@f1.8), the Canonlense should be competing.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 23, 2014)

IMO mirrorless is a transitional technology that will be replaced by smartphones in time. The Nokia 1020 is already getting close to some of the mirror less cameras out there.

DSLR is the pro solution here to stay, though we may see.some.benefits from.mirrorless in future dslr bodies.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2014)

Mirrorless cameras have some definite advantages, but speed of autofocus is currently a limiting factor. Speedy autofocus is much easier on small sensors, but on full frame, its much harder.
1. Autofocus can be much more accurate and work even with small aperture lenses. 

2. They can be made smaller lighter, and shock resistant.

3. They use fewer moving parts, and will be more reliable

3. The complex moving mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, viewfinder, AF sensor, and light sensor cost quite a bit, so mirrorless is potentially a lot less expensive.

The main technical drawback is speed of autofocus, and to some extent, the loss of quality in a lens with a reduced flange to sensor distance, they are difficult to make in ultra wide angles. The Canon dual pixel sensors have the potential to evolve into a fast autofocus system. The next generation following the 70D might have some additional features. As many have pointed out, there are other potential uses for those dual pixels that could make DR improvements possible.

A practical drawback is that they do not sell. Buyers seem to prefer the large DSLR format.


----------



## Max ☢ (Jun 23, 2014)

Hi,


vscd said:


> Mirrorless is a trend, it has no (kicking) advantages in itself. On theory the bodies could be build smaller... practically the bodies of existing systems won't get small as the focal flange is the same. So, you need at least a new bayonett and lense-system which is causing you a lot of problems for existing accessoires.



It is certain that if the sensor size, the bayonet mount and the focal flange are all kept constant, the removal of the mirror box won't bring any advantage in terms of weight and size of the overall camera+lens system. But saying that the mirrorless technology has no kicking advantage in itself is stretching things too much in my opinion. Removing the flappy mirror and the mecanical shutter potentially enables faster frame rates, reduces in-camera vibrations considerably, increases the AF accuracy (I think Canon's DPAF will be a killer technology for that), allows in-chip AF at any point over the whole surface area of the sensor (for a properly designed sensor that is) and makes AFMA a thing of the past. Moreover, a properly designed EVF can provide the user with much more information directly through the viewfinder than with an OVF (live histogram, picture rendition simulation, highlight alert, etc). Sure, you have that in the live view function of DSLRs already on the market, but DSLRs are not best used held at a distance and nothing really beats using the viewfinder for maximum user-camera stability during shooting (without tripod that is).

I think the true potential of the mirrorless technology is realized with new focal flange and lens mounts whose design is optimized for systems without a mirror box. Then you can get a smaller and lighter system, but of course the compatibility between established lenses and the new systems is somewhat lost - not entirely as some adapters exist out there (e.g. metabones speedbooster).



vscd said:


> The advantage is to get your lenses more closer to the sensor... yepp, nice idea, but what about refraction of light? You have to get the ray mostly straight to the sensor. Sony somewhat shows us that they failed on the A7/A7R. Maybe shaped sensors will be a solution.



This does not seem to be an unsolvable problem. Fuji with its X-mount platform designed with a 17.7mm flange-sensor depth (the back of the lens is even closer to the sensor by 7.5mm) manages to get some terrific image sharpness with almost no chromatic aberrations all across the frame. I find that my X-T1 with the XF56/1.2 delivers better images overall wide open than my EF 85/1.2LII stopped down to 1.8 on my 6D...


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2014)

So here's the question....

Let's say Canon comes out with the 7D2 and it is mirrorless and through some new technology, the EVF works as good or better than an OVF.... and they keep the same flange distance so all the EF and EF-S lenses work on it.... So what else happens?

For starters, no mirror means less vibrations and the elimination of mechanical parts. It also opens up the possibility of FAST burst rates like 30fps.

Doing the focus on the sensor means you never have to AFMA a lens again.

and speaking of focus, you now have the ability to track items or people. your focus can track that bird flying through the trees and not lock on a branch...

You have the ability to show lots of new information on the EVF, to manipulate images, preview, zebras, whatever, without having to take the camera down from your eye and look at the rear screen.

In other words, you have a digital camera that starts to act like a digital camera and leave the last restriction of film behind.


----------



## Max ☢ (Jun 23, 2014)

Exactly; with the advent of digital sensors, SLRs became DSLRs, which are like turntables fitted with a digital output-stage amplifier. With mirrorless systems + EVF, we now have systems like full-digital CD/DVD players ;D


----------



## tayassu (Jun 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> So here's the question....
> 
> Let's say Canon comes out with the 7D2 and it is mirrorless and through some new technology, the EVF works as good or better than an OVF.... and they keep the same flange distance so all the EF and EF-S lenses work on it.... So what else happens?
> 
> ...



+1
Mirrorless has only advantages, if they can manage to get the EVF as good as a normal OVF. I would be very happy if their next cameras would be mirrorless (maybe that is the biggest change in Canon's history  ).


----------



## wyluncustoms (Jun 23, 2014)

I'll just throw my 2 cents in here..

I rather buy DSLR b/c 

- i like the bodies better, (I have a 7D, and i used to have the olympus OMD-EM5)
- I'm not going to say the image quality is WAY better.. b/c mirrorless is very good, but I personally feel like, you can get a more natural picture sometimes, hard to explain. 
- Mirrorless cameras maybe cheaper when you compare the top mirrorless vs the top dslrs... but the lenses arent THAT cheap either. some are quite pricey and you dont have nearly as many options 
- 

I think its all about preference too.. like many people said. theres always going to be a market for anything.. and someone has to take the lead in it. canon and nikon dont really go that much into it b/c they are so dominant in DSLRS and they kno they will aways have a market in it. 

some people dont mind bigger bodies, some ppl prefer smaller.. some people want something new and different.. some people want the classics.. just preference


----------



## sdsr (Jun 23, 2014)

wyluncustoms said:


> I rather buy DSLR b/c
> 
> - i like the bodies better, (I have a 7D, and i used to have the olympus OMD-EM5)
> - I'm not going to say the image quality is WAY better.. b/c mirrorless is very good, but I personally feel like, you can get a more natural picture sometimes, hard to explain.
> - Mirrorless cameras maybe cheaper when you compare the top mirrorless vs the top dslrs... but the lenses arent THAT cheap either. some are quite pricey and you dont have nearly as many options



You may prefer the images you get from a 7D to those you got from your OM-D, but that comparison has no wider implications and the differences between the two have nothing to do with the fact that one is a dslr while the other is mirrorless. (One reason you may find the 7D's images "more natural" is because the OM-D E-M5 adds far more sharpening (esp. in default JPEG settings) than many other cameras. Images from the E-M1 don't, however.) The images generated by the various Micro 43 cameras don't all look the same, Sony APS-C mirrorless images don't look the same as Fuji-X images, which in turn don't look the same as EOS-M images, and none of those look the same as Sony FF mirrorless.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ....
> 
> In other words, you have a digital camera that starts to act like a digital camera and leave the last restriction of film behind.



Exactly! I don't understand why some seem not to "get" the advantages you list (though of course I get why, for some purposes at least, they're not yet the best choice for everyone). They may never catch on, of course, but I would like it if Canon offered one that was pleasant to use.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2014)

DesignJinni said:


> Mostly I hear is that mirrorless is no doubt the future.


 
While some would cause you to believe that they are the future, the hard facts are that mirrorless sales have dropped drastically, so bad that Canon and Nikon are backing off.

I'd like to see that mirror and penta prism go away, the mirror and related parts are among the biggest failure items in a camera.

Don't get taken in by the hype about mirrorless bodies, they are still in low production, and sales are dropping. A break through that makes them attractive to buyers in the USA and Europe is needed before they move into mainstream.

I'm hoping for that, but I am a bit dubious about it happening.


----------



## LDS (Jun 23, 2014)

vscd said:


> So, what are the drawbacks of mirrorless? You aren't able to use the camera if turned off in most cases... so you rely on live view which drains your battery and heats up the sensor.



IMHO this is the most limiting factor of mirrorless today, especially for some kind of photos. Unless there are great improvements in batteyr technologies, pro and semi-pro won't rely on cameras with relatively short autonomy.


----------



## Ralph (Jun 23, 2014)

Some people here refer to APS-C or Micro 4/3 cameras and state that the lenses are so much smaller than the fullframe DSLR counterparts. Please keep in mind that you also have to multiply the aperture with the cropfactor of 1.6 or 2.0 and not only the focal length... You nice f1.2 lense might then become a f2.4 lense.

There is a physical relationship between the diameter of the lense and the focal length that explains why these fullframe lenses are so big and there is no phyisal and mathematical way around it.


----------



## vscd (Jun 23, 2014)

Hmm, I just see repeated marketingslogans... but let's check some points...



> >Autofocus can be much more accurate and work even with small aperture lenses.


Wrong. The more accurate AF is just because you use contrast based Focus, you can do this with DSLRs, too. It's called liveview. On the 70D even in Dual-AF.



> >They can be made smaller lighter, and shock resistant.


Lighter is true, smaller... maybe, with the given limits and a new design. Shock resistant? I guess a 1DX is more shockresistant than any Fuji. Where do you get such claims?



> >They use fewer moving parts, and will be more reliable


The mirror-based technology is grown up since more than a half century. Photographs felt in vietnam, got shocked by earthquakes or took every sport-activity you could imagine. Do you really think it's the weak spot of a camera? Especially with semipro business or amateur? Why is there a shuttercount but no count for a mirrorlifetime? Right, even the shutter dies before a mirror does. And the shutter is still there, most likely a cheap one.



> >The complex moving mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, viewfinder, AF sensor, and light sensor cost quite a bit, so mirrorless is potentially a lot less expensive.


Calculate again with the required EVF.



> Fuji with its X-mount platform designed with a 17.7mm flange-sensor depth (the back of the lens is even closer to the sensor by 7.5mm) manages to get some terrific image sharpness with almost no chromatic aberrations all across the frame. I find that my X-T1 with the XF56/1.2 delivers better images overall wide open than my EF 85/1.2LII stopped down to 1.8 on my 6D...



First of all, the 56mm 1.2 *has* CA, even they're quite decent. But if you read my text again, you will note that you get problem in the wideangle-area. I don't think 56mm are wideangled.



> It also opens up the possibility of FAST burst rates like 30fps.



Not a problem of the mirrorbox. You can do this with any DSLR, too. A DLSR with Mirror open *is* a mirrorless. The only difference is a blacked out viewfinder, but you could compensate this the same way the mirrorless does (EVF/LV).



> Mirrorless has only advantages



I think people are just repeated the Sh*t they read in the magazines. This is just another pig, chases through the village. I'm not of yesterday or want to nag on anyone in this forum, but please open up your mind and think for yourself. Compare the new trends with the translucent mirror of Sony/Canon or Rangefinders. They all prayed their advantages and they truly have. But always see what's the *real* benefit of it. I just see the advantages in weight and maybe the size if you create a new camera with full take of the advantages.

Remember, the size has sideeffects. The accus are small and you carry 2 or 3 of em with you (300 pics CIPA with a Fuji-XT1 is a darned cheek). And if you want a nice handling you make it bigger with a vertical grip. Then count your bag-weight again. 

The cam is a tool, not more. If a mirrorless does it for you, you should take it. For me, I'm not convinced. Not after I thought twice.


----------



## Denisb (Jun 23, 2014)

I read all the comments here. And I disagree with a some of them.

First : Mirrorless are slow, not the 70d liveview (that mirrorless) is fast, as fast that my 5d II with the same lenses.

Second : Mirrorless lens are priced, yes, but, lens from small company are priced, because of R&D versus number of buyer. With a small frace distance, they shouldn't be. 

Third : I use my fast prime (85 1.2, 50 1.5, 180 f3.5) wide open for portrait, because they give that look than no other lens can give, and If I was more stupid, I should have the 200 f1.8 ;-)

I hope that Canon will come with a FF 100d or a FF-M with the fast AF of the Dual_pixel found in the 70d I NEED a small package FF frame because that I like the DOF, DR and the light package.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A break through that makes them attractive to buyers in the USA and Europe is needed before they move into mainstream.
> 
> I'm hoping for that, but I am a bit dubious about it happening.


+1

I think that they are the future, but they have to be better than what we have now for that future to come true.

When the first digital cameras came out, some said that they were the future and most ridiculed them..... and here we are 20 years later and very few people would go back to film. The same will be true of mirrorless, but we are not there yet.... getting close, but not there.

Canon's EOS-M failed because it is inferior and has a slow AF. Slap dual-pixel tech into it and it would be a nice camera. I still think that it was designed for dual-pixel but because of delays in that project (guessing here) was rushed to market too soon.


----------



## Max ☢ (Jun 23, 2014)

vscd said:


> > Fuji with its X-mount platform designed with a 17.7mm flange-sensor depth (the back of the lens is even closer to the sensor by 7.5mm) manages to get some terrific image sharpness with almost no chromatic aberrations all across the frame. I find that my X-T1 with the XF56/1.2 delivers better images overall wide open than my EF 85/1.2LII stopped down to 1.8 on my 6D...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the 56mm 1.2 *has* CA, even they're quite decent. But if you read my text again, you will note that you get problem in the wideangle-area. I don't think 56mm are wideangled.



I did not say the XF 56/1.2 was free of CA, I said it had "*almost* no chromatic aberrations" - it's in the quote above. As for the wide angle case, I also have the XF 10-24/4 OIS (15-36/6 FoV and DoF equivalent in 135 format), and this lens combined the X-T1 delivers even (slightly) better image quality than the XF 56/1.2. It is overall as sharp or even sharper on the corners and up to now I can barely see any hints of CA in the corners.

That certainly does not mean that the Fuji system is free of optical issues; The short distance between the lenses back element and the sensor can cause some troublesome multiple reflection which can become visible as faint image artefacts under the most contrasted scenes (e.g. arc lamp with a dark background, or with the sun in the corner of the frame and with dark surroundings such as under a bridge or in a forest). I don't complain though, I got far stronger ghosts with my 6D and EF lenses under the same situations.
Overall, using the shorter flange-sensor depth with the newer dedicated optics of the Fuji X system has been a positive step compared to my older 6D and EF-series lenses, be it in short-tele or in wide-angle range! Do you have some negative experience you'd like to share about the latest Fuji X system?


----------



## vscd (Jun 24, 2014)

Max ☢ said:


> Do you have some negative experience you'd like to share about the latest Fuji X system?



Hmm, I just had one for 2 weeks... and was surprised about the quality. No, I like the Fuji-System, especially the X100S. I use Fuji since my GX680 and my first roll of Velvia. But I don't like the people, who go to the new system and nag on every older DSLR they see. Why can't they live in coexistance? Why do we all need mirrorless boxes? Why electronic viewfinders? Why do they have to masturbate with their 56mm 1.2 under my nose after they sold their Canon 60D, where they *never * bought any decent lense to compare with? Of course a new formula of 2014 can perform better than a 85 f1.8, especially for 3 times the price. An OTUS would outrule the Fuji in any point... at another 3 times higher price. 

But if you ask...

I don't like the feel of the (X-T1) camera with a longer lense, I need a massive grip. The best one was on my Zenza Bronica ETRSi, the worst on my Merrill DP3. Why should I use a camera with a top-heavy lense attached to it? I fully adore the X100S, the X100S is coherent in itself. The X-T1 is a compromise for me. I don't need a cropped sensor in a smaller body for some nearly uncountable weight-advantage. I use a 1D or 5D for serious pictures and a X100S for street photography. The mirrorless system is a nice step into the right direction, but for MFT or APS-C, only. For Fullframe-Cameras, with natually bigger lightcircles and lenses the whole concept is bully. No one needs a Body in a size of a rear end cover. It's the same horseplay as my 40mm Pancake looks on my EOS-1N HS. It doesn't fit nor makes it sense


----------



## deleteme (Jun 24, 2014)

I like the aspects of mirrorless for size and silence.
What I do not like is:

1. Having a dark VF for a bit when I bring the camera to my eye. I do like rapid response and a DSLR can frame immediately.

2. Really ugly preview in the studio when using flash. In available light I love the preview but it goes out the door when I put a flash or trigger on the camera.

3. Generally small batteries that go along with small bodies. I am not a fanatic about having the absolute smallest camera so I would be happy with a slightly larger body to hold a more robust battery.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> The moral of the story? If your a discourteous, tromping wannabe who has to keep on the move because your too impatient to set up, sit, and wait for natures beauty to come to you in comfort...then a tiny light weight mirrorless with a tiny light weight lens is probably for you. You won't get the same action-grabbing performance, you won't have the same ergonomics (those mirrorless cams and lenses are TI-NY...like, toy tiny, like, barely fits in your hands tiny...like, WTF am I doing with a TOY with that BEAUIFUL BIG BIRD in front of me?!?!? OMG!), your IQ won't be as good (or maybe it will if you drop some dough on the FF A7r, but then you'll really be suffering on the AF and ergonomics front).


 
That's me  I do not have enough patience, but I'd never disturb someone in that manner.
I'm still waiting for a mirrorless or at least the next generation of dual pixel and full frame.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> The moral of the story? If your a discourteous, tromping wannabe who has to keep on the move because your too impatient to set up, sit, and wait for natures beauty to come to you in comfort...then a tiny light weight mirrorless with a tiny light weight lens is probably for you. You won't get the same action-grabbing performance, you won't have the same ergonomics (those mirrorless cams and lenses are TI-NY...like, toy tiny, like, barely fits in your hands tiny...like, WTF am I doing with a TOY with that BEAUIFUL BIG BIRD in front of me?!?!? OMG!), your IQ won't be as good (or maybe it will if you drop some dough on the FF A7r, but then you'll really be suffering on the AF and ergonomics front).
> 
> Anyway...mirrorless has it's place. They have their uses and their benefits. But, every time I encounter a die-hard mirrorless user, my experiences tend to be similar to the above. Mirrorless users are ALWAYS on the move. Moving moving moving moving. No patience, no time to wait and let things just happen around you. MOVING. I totally understand why they are fanatics about mirrorless...but wow...slow down and enjoy something, enjoy life happening around you every once in a while!



makes me smile.....

my birding setup includes a camping chair and a good book  and while I was reading today Harry came past to check me out...


----------



## jrista (Jun 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The moral of the story? If your a discourteous, tromping wannabe who has to keep on the move because your too impatient to set up, sit, and wait for natures beauty to come to you in comfort...then a tiny light weight mirrorless with a tiny light weight lens is probably for you. You won't get the same action-grabbing performance, you won't have the same ergonomics (those mirrorless cams and lenses are TI-NY...like, toy tiny, like, barely fits in your hands tiny...like, WTF am I doing with a TOY with that BEAUIFUL BIG BIRD in front of me?!?!? OMG!), your IQ won't be as good (or maybe it will if you drop some dough on the FF A7r, but then you'll really be suffering on the AF and ergonomics front).
> ...



Nice shot. 

My birding setup included my ass and the ground.  And the camera+lens on a tripod, of course. And maybe my phone...on which I have good books, good music, good games, lots of good stuff.


----------

