Mirror-less vs SLR: the future is on its way...

[thequintessentialman]

Haven't really been paying a lot of attention to "CSC" (mirror-less") until I saw the recent news that Nikon and Canon were betting the farm on this tech and abandoning SLR.  From those of you that have or are shooting both, what has been your experience and what are the pros/cons as you see them? 

 

 

[mjferron]

The future is the future but the past is not as obsolete as it seems. Pros need to shoot with whatever works best for them and their livelihood but the rest of can do what ever we please. 

[thequintessentialman]

mjferron: I do not disagree with you.  The tools we choose are personal and based on many factors.  My question here is just the technology and how some of the old guard (and new) that has made the transition, review it.  A friend of mine (and much more accomplished photographer) recently transitioned not only to mirror-less but also from Nikon to Canon.  I'm just curious what photography reasons other people have for getting with the new or staying with the old.  

[Rick Helmke]

I’m staying with dslr technology because I see no reason to change. There’s no real tech reason I can find, sure mirrorless is shiny and new but on a day to day basis what can it offer that is worth having that I don’t already have? Electronic viewfinders, so what.? Fewer moving parts? Again so what? A decent dslr can makes thousands of exposures with no problem. For that matter most of my film slr  bodies can and have done the same. The mirrorless bodies and all the lenses needed to go with it are stupid expensive and selling off the old stuff is losing a lot more. As far as I can see the manufacturers just needed to make something different so people will run out and buy it because they aren’t replacing current equipment with new every two or three years. 
 

Rick H.

[Robin Smith]

Oh boy, you have not been attending for the last 5-10 years! As Rick says, this is the newish source of revenue for the camera makers. New cameras with a whole new set of lenses at high prices. In terms of what they can do over the DSLR: well in general they tend to have image stabilization in the body (good) and the electronic viewfinder has advantages in previsualization of exposure (good), but only expensive ones have no image lag for fast-moving subjects, other electronic do-dads have been added, (neutral density filters, in camera focus stacking/bracketing etc), but these could have been added to DSLRs too. Electronic shutters are silent and vibration free (but many still produce distortion in fast-moving subjects). Mirrorless bodies tend to be smaller than DSLRs (probably good), lenses not so different. Lenses are probably better over the last 10 years, but this is independent of mirrorless/DSLR tech. AF technology is better as mirrorless allows more accuracy with focus points all over the frame (good). Battery life is poorer than DSLRs, but newer mirrorless are better in this regard. Is it a revolution? Not in my book, but many think it is. To me the revolution was the introduction of digital over film, everything else is just a number of iterations. Most current DSLRs remain very capable tools. The main task of camera makers is to convince people like you that photography is impossible without a new mirrorless camera. Eventually all the DSLRs will wear out, but that is a long time coming.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Robin Smith

[Jochen_S]

I am convinced to buy some R5 (Mk. II?) when I 'll get seriously into wide open portraits and headshots. Eye detection AF, with no need for micro adjustments must be great. 

My old Fujis sucked big time indoors with flash and kit zooms: VF lag, horribly sluggish and unreliable focus acquisition, no fun at all. 

DSLRs can utilize focus assist beams in the dark and need less batteries on unplugged vacations. 

 

[SCL]

There's been so much written on tis topic I'm not going to even attempt to summarize it. I'll only comment that I made the film->digital transition gradually in the early 2000s and over the last 3-4 years from SLR->mirrorless. Each had a learning curve to it, but it was exciting to learn new technology, and application of old skills with new products. However that does not mean I gave up on film and SLRs, Otherwise my Leicas, Nikons, Contaxes, Pentaxes et. al. would become shelf queens, which I strongly oppose, and the freezer filled with film would just sit in a cryogenic state even longer. These days I choose among the technologies and what best suits what I want to photograph, and try to use everything several times each year.

[Ken Katz]

It is clearly a profit making endeavor by Canon/Nikon, but at the same time, a necessary development in order maintain their market positions in the face of new technology and competition.  Sony went all in for mirrorless since they could not seriously compete against C&N with DSLRs.  Fuji and the M43 companies also needed to differentiate /  innovate in order to try to find market niches that they could try to survive.

Although C & N could have added much of the new technology to DSLR's, at some point it would not be beneficial to duplicate AF and meter systems above the mirror, when the tech imbedded in the imaging sensor would eventually be superior.  IBIS is far less functional with a DSLR since you only get the benefit for the taken image.  If you want IBIS for viewing, you need to use live view.  If live view is needed for IBIS and for the best AF tracking performance, then why have an optical VF system?

You can continue to use your DSLRs / film cameras, ect, but don't expect any future improved models or lenses introduced for those products.  If what you currently use is just fine, then you should be set for years.  

[Gary Naka]

Like it or not, mirrorless is the future. 
Nikon has discontinued their D3xxx and D5xxx entry level dSLR cameras.  I think the other dSLRs are not far behind.

My mirrorless experience is limited to Olympus, which may be different than Sony, Nikon or Canon.

For mirrorless and against dSLR

• WYSIWYG. 
  • Especially valuable in difficult lighting where the meter is almost useless.  For me, this is one of the BIG advantages of mirrorless.
• Truly SILENT. 
  • I can shoot at a concert and the camera literally make no noise.  The theater people who did not want photographers with noisy cameras were surprised. 
  • I can also use in on a golf course without disturbing the golfers.

Against mirrorless, and for dSLR

• Unless the EVF is "truly continuous," it is difficult to use for FAST sports. 
  • On my Olympus, after I shoot a burst, the EVF freezes for a fraction of a second.  Not much, but just long enough to break my ability to follow fast moving action. 
  • I cannot track a subject and hold the AF point on the subject, when the EVF is frozen.
  • For non-FAST moving sports the EVF works just fine.
• mirrorless cameras use much more power than a dSLR. 
  • My Olympus EM1-mk2 with a 12-40/2.8 will run about 2-3/4 hour continuous, whereas my Nikon D7200 will shoot all weekend on a single charge. 
  • With my mirrorless, I ALWAYS carry spare batteries. 
  • When I was running my Olympus EM1-mk1, at one point I had FIVE batteries, to get me through a full day of shooting. 
  • Larger cameras with a larger capacity battery will make a difference.
  • Power consumption also depends on what lens you have on the camera.  Some of my lenses draw more power than others.  Worst case, with one specific camera/lens combo, was 2-1/2 hours per battery.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Gary Naka

[Ed_Ingold]

Focus tracking a moving subject is something mirrorless does very well. An interrupted or momentary freezing of the EVF has no effect. AF sensors cover 90% of the FOV, so If the tracked object remains in the field of view, the focus point will move accordingly.

[Gary Naka]

On 11/28/2022 at 12:34 PM, Ed_Ingold said:

Focus tracking a moving subject is something mirrorless does very well. An interrupted or momentary freezing of the EVF has no effect. AF sensors cover 90% of the FOV, so If the tracked object remains in the field of view, the focus point will move accordingly.

 

Can it track ONE subject out of many, such as the quarterback with the ball; with many other players around and between you and the QB, and half of them in the SAME uniform?  Same with other sports, like basketball, where the players "mix it up."

That is why I rarely used tracking when shooting sports.
I've only used tracking or zone AF for tennis, when there is only ONE subject to track, and no competing subjects.

[Robin Smith]

Gary. fyi the OM1 has no discernible lag even at 15-20 fps, and the battery life is much better than the EM1mkII. I shot 2000 frames and there was still plenty of life left in the battery. It is almost as good as my Canon 5DIV, or so it seems. WRT to subject tracking, I agree for team sports it is not great for the reason you state, but there is of course no reason to blame the camera. It is not a human .

[mikemorrellNL]

I have no general opinion on whether current 'mirrorless' cameras are better (or worse) than traditional DSLR's. I note that Canon's 2022 financial statement included the statement:

"The camera market has largely bottomed out at its current size. Going forward, we expect the professional and advanced amateur segment to expand further and those products will because more highly developed. Accordingly, we expect the overall market to grow from now on. As for DSLR cameras, we will continue to supply products as long as there is demand”.

My takeaway is that Canon will supply current DSLRs as long as there is still demand (= no further investment). So, at least for Canon (and I suspect most other suppliers) investments will be targeted towards 'mirrorless' technology. Personally, I'm pretty sure that there will come a time where DSLRs become outdated.

In my lifetime, I'm sticking with DSLRs 🙂
 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by mikemorrellNL

[Ed_Ingold]

12 hours ago, Gary Naka said:

Can it track ONE subject out of many, such as the quarterback with the ball; with many other players around and between you and the QB, and half of them in the SAME uniform?  Same with other sports, like basketball, where the players "mix it up."

 

Use AF-S and the lock-on center spot. Select the target by centering it in the viewfinder and half-press the shutter release. The green focus box will track that object wherever it is in the finder, for single and multi-frame shots. The target can be a face, eyes, or any identifiable object.

[Gary Naka]

3 hours ago, Robin Smith said:

Gary. fyi the OM1 has no discernible lag even at 15-20 fps, and the battery life is much better than the EM1mkII. I shot 2000 frames and there was still plenty of life left in the battery. It is almost as good as my Canon 5DIV, or so it seems. WRT to subject tracking, I agree for team sports it is not great for the reason you state, but there is of course no reason to blame the camera. It is not a human .

I shoot an OM1.  The EVF freeze is better than the EM1-mk2, and MUCH better than the mk1.  But the freeze is still bothersome when tracking a fast moving athlete.

The battery capacity and size has increased from the EM1-mk1, to the mk2/mk3 to the OM1.
So as much as Olympus wanted to keep the camera small, more battery capacity comes with a bigger size.

My experience with my Olympus is that battery life is more related to power ON time and the lens used, than the number of shots taken.

It is what it is, and I just do my best with it.
 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Gary Naka

[Gary Naka]

2 hours ago, Ed_Ingold said:

Use AF-S and the lock-on center spot. Select the target by centering it in the viewfinder and half-press the shutter release. The green focus box will track that object wherever it is in the finder, for single and multi-frame shots. The target can be a face, eyes, or any identifiable object.

hmm got to try this.

I only use AF-C for shooting sports.

[Robin Smith]

Not my experience I have to say for up to 15 fps. I have had no issue with being able to follow the action. I did with the mkII, although I managed. I have yet to have to change a battery on a day's shooting. The 2000 shots were with the mechanical shutter too. But of course if you leave the camera on and/or use the monitor more the power drains faster. Dual IS may drain the battery more, but this has become a non-issue for me so far perhaps because I generally don't use the 12-100mm for action shots.

[Ed_Ingold]

6 hours ago, Gary Naka said:

I only use AF-C for shooting sports.

I use AF-S center lock for focus-and-compose.

It's a good idea to turn the touch screen off. Otherwise your nose or accidental contact may cause the focus point to initialize other than in the center.

[Gary Naka]

4 hours ago, Robin Smith said:

Not my experience I have to say for up to 15 fps. I have had no issue with being able to follow the action. I did with the mkII, although I managed. I have yet to have to change a battery on a day's shooting. The 2000 shots were with the mechanical shutter too. But of course if you leave the camera on and/or use the monitor more the power drains faster. Dual IS may drain the battery more, but this has become a non-issue for me so far perhaps because I generally don't use the 12-100mm for action shots.

 

I don't know if it is the dual IS or the pro AF that is the battery drain.
Cuz the battery run time of the 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8, and the 12-100/4 on an EM1-mk2 are close.  And the run time with the pro lenses are consistently shorter than with my non-pro lenses.

[rodeo_joe1]

On 11/30/2022 at 10:58 PM, Robin Smith said:

Not my experience I have to say for up to 15 fps. I have had no issue with being able to follow the action.

What DSLR allows 15 FPS? And if there is one, what percentage of the time is your view of the subject obscured by a flipping mirror? 50%? 60%? 80%?

I see the EVF as a natural progression or evolution of camera viewing systems.

Sticking one's head under a dark-cloth to peer at an upside down image while reaching for a focus knob, and then closing the preview on the shutter before every exposure was painfully slow. But was tolerated for about the first 60 years of photography. Barring those who simply looked through a rear sight and wire frame-finder. 

Then came early SLR systems that required peering down into a folding leather hood, with no focussing aids. 

Next the direct-vision rangefinder peephole, that was an absolute bane to spectacle wearers and near useless for telephoto lenses. 

The TLR suffered from parallax and poor or zero lens interchangeability, plus awful ergonomics and being stuck with a square format. 

The 35mm SLR initially had a dim screen and no instant-return mirror, the introduction of which as a side-effect gave a higher likelihood of handheld camera shake. Followed later by brighter screens with distracting Fresnel lines and barely adequate centrally fixed focussing 'aids'.

AF, TTL exposure, brighter screens and VR systems followed for both the SLR and then DSLR and things got slightly better... until higher pixel counts showed us the failings of poorly-aligned separate AF sensing.

Now we've been given a precisely WYSIWYG viewing system, precise AF, the ability to magnify for precise manual focus, zero camera-induced vibration and daylight-bright viewing in the darkest of conditions. Not to mention the ability to mount and use almost any lens we want. 

And still some people aren't satisfied? 

Edited December 2, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[david_henderson]

Lying behind this question lies the issue of "why buy anything new at all?"

I've been using the same equipment in essence for at least several years- Canon 5D  mk3 with Mk 2 retained as back-up.  I have yet to conclude that  I could make the photographs I want to make markedly better with new equipment; I've yet to conclude that my older stuff is causing a lot of reliability issues.  I like the idea of saving a bit of weight and space but whilst the mirrorless bodies are lighter the same isn't really true of the lenses so I dumped that idea.  So for me there hasn't been a lot of sense in buying a (slightly) better mousetrap.  

I have enjoyed testing out the capabilities of relatively new software ,  and to be frank I think I can do more to improve my photography that way than buying a new dslr or mirrorless camera that way. I've always made good use of ND grads , even with dslrs  and I need to replace my scratched and scruffy set of 6.  But hold on- do I?  There are processes inside later versions of LR and PS that allow me to quickly select only the sky and set whatever exposure I want in post in about the same time as it would take to select and fit a grad.   I've recently made my first trip for 30 years without using grads at all.  Not once.  So that's probably $1000 I get to keep.

I could see me buying new equipment to facilitate different sorts or photography that I can't do now.  Better macro for example or even a drone though I think I've missed the boat on drone photography which may well end up in the same box as panoramics of two decades ago, when we all bought X-Pans or similar.  And as I get older swapping the entire system for something half the size & weight so I can still travel with gear.  But a better mousetrap? Probably not for me.

[Robin Smith]

I gave up using polarizers and neutral grad filters years ago as I can do all I need in software. I bought finally got around to buying some ND filters and then got the OM1 which has them built in via software so I don't need them anymore. Pretty well given up using a tripod too. So I need less stuff than before. When I bought the Canon 5DIV I think it was a poor return on my investment. It was better than the 6D, but not $1500 better and the camera was bigger. I have no intention of ever spending >$2500 on a camera again. What I need is good light and good subjects, which is what it is all about in the end.

[frans_waterlander]

7 minutes ago, Robin Smith said:

I gave up using polarizers and neutral grad filters years ago as I can do all I need in software.

How do you get the polarization effects in software, I wonder?

[rodeo_joe1]

Well, you could use a shift lens to avoid direct reflections, or use PS to clone reflections out, together with unwanted highlights, and/or darken a blue sky, etc. But it would be a time-consuming complete PITA.

OTOH a polarizer often has unwanted side effects - a blue sky is darkened, but all the shine disappears from foliage and it assumes a rather artificial shade of green. While bodies of water tend to turn pitch black. So it's not a panacea of a filter to be used willy-nilly. 

Then there's the plain old ND filter. How would we get that 'milky' flowing water effect without one? Make passers-by disappear from a cityscape? Or narrow the depth-of-field in bright sunlight?

Software and hardware are all tools in the armoury, having their place and use. 

[Robin Smith]

Not anti-reflection effects (I vanishingly rarely need those), selective sky exposure reduction and changing blue channel luminosity post processing darkens skies easily.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Robin Smith