It's here! Sony's full-frame mirrorless...

<blockquote>

<p>I do not expect to see the demise of SLRs anytime soon, certainly not in my lifetime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, I certainly hope you can survive until the end of this decade. Take care!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The real point is a different way of making a camera that is smaller and lighter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is just one of the advantages. The real point is that you get live image processing and then that can be sent to a viewfinder. A DSLR cannot allow that. The mirror gets in the way of any such feature - it gets in the way of video, it gets in the way of LiveView. Things that get in the way of useful features eventually get eliminated. What advantage do you get out of that mirror these days? Only PDAF - that's the only lifeline that the mirror has and it will get cut in another year or two as the MILC PDAF implementations get refined. The pace of technology is amazing - 5 years ago there were no such cameras and I could only choose between P&Ss and DSLRs! Just think of what 5 more years will bring.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't be surprised if we all eventually went Sony.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would be. Don't discard Canon so easily - they can put out a camera like Sony and carry over their customer base with relatively little effort. At the first clear sign that their customers are deserting them, they will do that. But apparently. not before.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This allows the use of non-retrofocus lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This applies to wide angle lenses. Placing the exit pupil of the lens close to a sensor runs into issues that weren't factors when film was the recording media. Here an an excerpt for a piece in The Online Photographer:</p>

<p >There's little reason to expect that the optical stack (OLPF, IR filter etc.) in front of the Sony A7's sensor is thinner than the Leica M9's.</p>

<p >In the film era, lenses were designed to be stigmatic in air. In other words, back in the days when digital sensors didn't exist, lens designers expected the medium present between the lens' last vertex (the rearmost glass surface) and the imaging plane (the film) to have a homogeneous refractive index (RI) of one.<br>

<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/10/two-reasons.html">The entire piece</a> <br>

The bottom line is that retro focus wide angle lenses designed to be located farther from image plane have fewer issues when used with digital sensors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The real point is that you get live image processing and then that can be sent to a viewfinder</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never have understood the big deal of being able to see histograms and all the rest of the data overload junk in your electronic viewfinder, so I don't get the EVF is such a big deal in itself. Maybe it has importance in the video world, but all I need are AF points and maybe an electronic level - all available in current mirrored systems. I used to care about seeing shutter speeds and aperture but even now I don't really need them either. I do agree there are other advantages to mirrorless systems - size, fewer moving parts etc, but I don't see the EVF being intrinsically the revolution that many enthusiasts gush about.</p>

<p>A EVF has the advantage of being able to see the image in bright sunlight, a significant issue with the cameras that have only a view screen on the back.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AF precision, on the other hand, is generally better with mirrorless cameras, because the actual image capture sensor is used for determining focus</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

EOS 70D.</p>

<p>In the English language, <em>generally</em> is not a synonym for <em>always</em>.</p>

<p ><a name="00c53L"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2190230">Steven Seelig</a> <a href="/member-status-icons">said:</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A EVF has the advantage of being able to see the image in bright sunlight, a significant issue with the cameras that have only a view screen on the back.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Plus, you don't look like a clueless dork, holding the camera out three feet in front of you.</p>

 

<p>I suspect Robin was comparing an optical system to an EVF not a rear LCD. I can assure you that an optical system is better than an EVF for bright light. My Leica M240 has both available but the optical system is much better. Focusing with the rangefinder (or indeed the old SLR split screens is much easier than with an EVF and focus peaking). Of course AF can solve this problem but AF focuses where it choses not always where you choose. This can be solved with careful AF point selection and focus bracketing. I personally find the manual focus rangefinder on my Leica M to be more precise at portrait distances with fast lenses than my 1 series Canon AF systems. <br>

While little information is available the flange distance on the A7 is 18mm which is 10mm less than Leica, and may lead to Sony FE being designed for retrofocus lenses. This would suggest that non-retrofocus wide angles may have the same issues as they have had on all not Leica bodies. Retrofocus design wide angle lenses should be fine. Still the price is right for a second body or Leica alternative.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I don't get the EVF is such a big deal in itself"<br /> "I don't see the EVF being intrinsically the revolution that many enthusiasts gush about" <em><strong>Robin S.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Use one of these EVF mirrorless cameras with an exceptional manual focus feature, and you may understand what <strong>all the excitement</strong> is about.<br /> <br /> Consider that a state of the art DSLR can't do what these new EVF Mirrorless units can do, <br /> to utilize modern <strong>or</strong> old school glass without any regard to:</p>

<ol>

<li>"Focus shift" (It corrects for it)</li>

<li>"RF calibration" (Ignores it)</li>

<li>"Aperture calibration error" (Becomes moot, it meters & fires at taking aperture)</li>

<li>"Adapter mount quality" (You can use a taped up toilet tissue roll if you had to)</li>

<li>Super speed lens "nominal DOF focus" accuracy (Clear AF screens can't come close to accuracy & ease of RealTime focus peaking/zooming)</li>

<li>Too dark to see the subject? (EVF boosts up the gain to allow for easy composing etc.)</li>

</ol>

<p>The only equalizer for the DSLR is a "Live View" feature; but when compared to the lighting speed use of legacy glass with EVF Mirr units, it becomes analogous of still using a flip phone from 5 years ago while Apple iPhone units are available...</p>

<p>Gus,</p>

<p>I do not shoot with MF lenses anymore: when I need to MF, I just use Live View. Nor do I use adapters. I could indeed use an EVF for manually focusing and this would be just fine, but your list otherwise is pretty incomprehensible to me (apart from focus shift which, if I am live viewing, I can solve - not that it's a problem so far) - not sure how they impact the quality of the final image in my case? I guess I am pretty unclued in about EVFs. I anticipate having one day and I have no beef about it, but I have to say I don't share the <em>excitement. </em>I guess they are to you as you do so much manual focusing with non-native lenses.</p>

<p>The other advantage of DSLR AF, for now, is AF tracking or servo mode for sport and flying birds, etc. It'll be interesting to watch that gap close and new, super-telephoto lenses come out for mirrorless. (Grab you wallets).</p>

Having just played with an FD 300 F2.8 lens on my Leica M the real issue for fast lenses is actually holding the camera.

This is where the small bodies fail. Firstly I suspect than many do not have the construction standard to allow anything

other than holding the lens at all times. This makes moving around more awkward as a big lens may damage the lens

mount in the camera. Secondly I find a 300 F2.8 much easier to use on my Canon 1 series bodies than on my Leica M.

Indeed the 5D / 7D bodies are about the smalles I would like with a big lens. For many thing such as BIF you end up

shooting handheld in some situations. I have played with live view and big lenses on Micro 4/3 and now my Leica M but it

is a lot more difficult that on a big DSLR. Thus I would suggest that for this use the mirrorless camera would have to get a

lot bigger.

<blockquote>

<p>Consider that a state of the art DSLR can't do what these new EVF Mirrorless units can do</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Some of these are just plain wrong. Doesn't sound like you have kept up with the technology.</p>

The Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs will not disappear anytime soon. I read in another forum a photographer who after he had switched from a 5D system to an NEX-7 system, the camera could not stand up to pro abuse. Even with a protector he had to replace the screen twice, had issues with heavy lenses and the lens mount of the NEX, to say nothing of the dents on the NEX from heavy pro use. It would be reasonable to assume that these same flaws may plague the A7s. Nonetheless, the A7s are very exciting for photographers that can be somewhat more gentle with their equipment. Plus as Gus has pointed, the use of Leica and Zeiss glass is icing on the cake. I don't understand how Sony could have put out the A7s with that hideous SLR-looking lump of a viewfinder. The NEX line all display truly elegant packaging. Design wise the A7s should have been more like a cousin to the NEX line instead of a deformed relative.

<p>Just a few thoughts.<br /> First off:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't get the EVF is such a big deal in itself</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not just about focussing, of course, it's about EV compensation. On the Fuji X series cameras (and maybe others as well) you can dial in EV compensation with your right thumb without taking your eye away from the VF, watching the effect in the picture (and histogram) as you do. Much as I adore my Canon F1Ns (and 1Ds III), that's progress. I may be behind the curve here, but are there any DSLRs which even offer a histogram in the VF (don't see why that should be difficult)?</p>

<p>Second, all these changes we are seeing increase choice, don't they? Choice as to which camera (or system) to use for which job or occasion. And in doing so they increase the fracturing of the camera market (already blown apart by smart phones) into smaller segments than was the case 20 years ago. As long as there is a market segment that want them, though, there will still be SLRs, just as RF film bodies (not just Leicas) were still being produced at the beginning of this century, 35 years (or so) after the SLR had taken over.</p>

<p>Third, the legacy glass factor is an important one, but as Philip Wilson points out, it's not a free lunch. Using new bodies with old glass doesn't always work that well (at the other end of the focal length scale, my FD 24mm f1.4L showed noticeable CA on a Sony Nex 5) and techniques have to be adapted to make it feasible at all (esp. with big lenses). Another problem is EVF lag: I have found with my X-Pro 1 that the EVF can lag a little behind (particularly when using a polarising filter: but it's not much different when focusing legacy glass). That can be handled: you just have to slow everything down, but it means that capturing fast sports action, say, (or children running about), however good you are at MF with an SLR, just ain't gonna happen without a LOT of missed shots - at which point you might as well use the kit zoom (the Fuji is excellent) and save the legacy glass for landscapes and portraiture. What, perhaps, we <em>will</em> start to find out is just how good some of our legacy glass is (or isn't): at 38MP on an A7R, there's going to be nowhere to hide ...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Never have understood the big deal of being able to see histograms and all the rest of the data overload junk in your electronic viewfinder, so I don't get the EVF is such a big deal in itself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not what matters, what matters is that you can see the effect of changing settings. If you use a B&W digital filter, you see its effect. If an area is overexposed or underexposed, you see that. You see DOF more clearly than with an OVF. You can make adjustments and see their impact.<br /> <br /> Even if you don't care much about what you see in a VF other than AF information, you should still appreciate the better accuracy that you get by eliminating the mirror and checking for focus at the same place where you capture the image. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/11/canon-eos-70d-dual-pixel-af-for-better-or-for-worse">dpreview has some interesting comments about the Canon 70D</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My Leica M240 has both available but the optical system is much better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It may be that Leica's implementation of their EVF is not state of the art. Also, focus peaking is not a precise focusing method with fast lenses at short distances (portraiture, for example) - it tends to overestimate the DOF. What you would want to use is image magnification, which can be done automatically as you adjust the focusing ring - not sure if Leica implements that. Focus peaking has its uses, but it is rather overrated.<br /> <br /> Now I have not used a rangefinder in years and I'm not sure how much Leica has improved the system since I used one. But the main problem with the rangefinders I used (and also with the SLR split screens) is that they forced you to focus in the center of the frame. There was no way to accurately focus off-center - you had to focus and reframe - that is probably going to introduce even more focusing inaccuracies than focus peaking when using thin DOF.<br /> <br /> With focus magnification, you can select the area you want magnified and have the system zoom in it. That allows focusing with precision pretty much anywhere in the frame. It is especially useful if you track a moving subject when you don't have the time to focus and reframe.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thus I would suggest that for this use the mirrorless camera would have to get a lot bigger.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not a challenge. A challenge is making SLRs smaller. Going the other way only requires market demand.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The bottom line is that retro focus wide angle lenses designed to be located farther from image plane have fewer issues when used with digital sensors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, if there is a kind of lens that can be better built with a retro focus design, nothing prevents its production for a MILC. The mirror of an SLR on the other hand prevents a choice. MILCs give you more choice for lens designs, more choices for body sizes, more real time information.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs will not disappear anytime soon. I read in another forum a photographer who after he had switched from a 5D system to an NEX-7 system, the camera could not stand up to pro abuse.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No way! A $1000+ camera that was not built to last like a $3000+ one? What kind of "pro" makes decisions like that? And what can we learn out of this story other than that such "pro" is either a made up character or a moron?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Focus peaking has its uses, but it is rather overrated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

James since you mention the "New F1" I should mention that one of mine survived a fall of about 1000 feet down a scree

slop (in a backpack). Despite several major dents it is still working fine 28 years later! Of course Pop photo tested this

body in the shower for 45 mins (despite it not being advertised as waterproof!).

 

Laurentiu. The new M240 rangefinder appears to be much more accurate than any prior version. While of course you do

not see the DOF (or even through the lens) it is very accurate for the precise point of focus. Leica does implement a 5x

or 10x zoom on the EVF and there are several was to zoom in. I personally use the button by the lens as I prefer this to

having it do it when I touch the focus ring. The bottom is right under your finger but the zoomed image is harder to be

exact with than the rangefinder - and the rangefinder is more accurate.

 

My point on large tele lenses is that mirrorless vendors may not make bodies to take them - especially since they would

also have to produce the lenses. Using a different manufacturers big tele on a mirrorless body is an interesting

experiment but photographically very limited.

<blockquote>

<p>"Some of these are just plain wrong. Doesn't sound like you have kept up with the technology." <em><strong>Jeff S.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay <em><strong>Jeff</strong></em> I'll bite.<br /> Nikon or Canon may have proprietary corrections for focus shift <strong>in their OEM</strong> lenses, but why don't you tell us all about the FF DSLR that can take a Leica Noctulux f/.95 M-Lens, or correct for <strong>any</strong> of my listed items using legacy glass?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Another problem is EVF lag: I have found with my X-Pro 1 that the EVF can lag a little" -<strong>&-</strong> "capturing fast sports action, say, (or children running about), however good you are at MF with an SLR, just ain't gonna happen without a LOT of missed shots" <em><strong>James T.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><strong>James</strong></em>, this "lag" you mention isn't true for the Sony NEX7 units -<strong>&-</strong> with the <em>10 Frames Per Second</em> firing speed along with the ability to see peaking out to the edges of the field with "focus prediction" visible on the field, your "<em>LOTs of missed shots</em>" statement becomes a bit of an exaggeration...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"the A7s are very exciting for photographers that can be somewhat more gentle with their equipment" <strong><em>Luis R.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><strong>Luis</strong></em>, we probably won't know until testing & ownership mileage has been applied to these new Sony offerings how truly durable they are, but the simple fact that Sony added <strong>weatherizing & magnesium</strong> to the <strong>A7R,</strong> means debris, liquid and shock will be less apt to affect the internal complexities...</p>

<p>The news is great (A7r), but until the question of wide angle lens compatibility is known I will definitely hold my breath and wait.</p>

<p>Also, it is a pity that the excellent rotatable viewing screen of the NEX-7 wasn't adopted in the A7r. I do quite a bit of very low level or high position handheld shooting and the NEX-7 type viewing is what I would really like to see in a FF and Leica M lens compatible camera.</p>

<p>I agree that magnification is more reliable than focus peaking, especially with longer lenses. Peaking gets you most of the way - and sometimes all of the way - but magnification allows perfect focus.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I read in another forum a photographer who after he had switched from a 5D system to an NEX-7 system, the camera could not stand up to pro abuse</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I believe that, but it confirms that for most photographers, mirrorless cameras are the future. Most photographers don't tend to abuse their cameras (although one should never be afraid to - after all, it's the shot that matters and not the camera). DSLRs - at least the pro models - are certainly built like tanks. They'll always be around, that is true, but they will serve a niche, sort of like film cameras. Not a bad thing.</p>

<p>Wouldn't a mirrorless camera have the <em>potential</em> to actually be <em>more</em> durable/reliable than an SLR, due to having fewer moving parts? Manufacturers could build a mirrorless camera to be just as rugged (or heavy, or big) as an SLR if they wanted to. They simply haven't done that <em>yet</em>. That doesn't mean that mirrorless cameras are inherently less rugged.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Manufacturers could build a mirrorless camera to be just as rugged (or heavy, or big) as an SLR if they wanted to. They simply haven't done that <em>yet</em>.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>well, actually, the olypmus e1-m1 is a super-rugged body with more weathersealing than most DSLRs. the problem is that none of the Oly primes, which give best performance, are weathersealed. so if you're trying to use that body in the rain, you need to use the kit lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They simply haven't done that <em>yet</em>. That doesn't mean that mirrorless cameras are inherently less rugged.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, there is a big difference between what is possible to do and what is done now. Some people seem to think that we are already doing all that is possible to do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the problem is that none of the Oly primes, which give best performance, are weathersealed. so if you're trying to use that body in the rain, you need to use the kit lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Prime lenses are rarely weather sealed. The new 12-40/2.8 zoom is weather sealed. The 35-100/2.8 will also be weather sealed. There will be more weather sealed lenses in the future, if there is demand for them, although these two should cover everyone's needs, really. It's not like a weather sealed lens allows you to change it in the rain, so it makes more sense to weather seal versatile zooms than prime lenses.<br>

<br>

Personally, I wouldn't want to have a full lineup of weather sealed lenses, as it would increase their cost and I have little use of the feature. I'd rather get it in one versatile lens than be forced to pay for it in all lenses.</p>