This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I've been using a mirrorless camera for around 3 years now and have long thought that this format would be the death knell for the DSLR. I was interested to read a top fashion photographer's blog yesterday who thought the same thing.
There seem to be only two downsides to mirrorless cameras: battery life and focus speed. The first is not really a technological issue: bigger batteries or carry spares. The issue of focus speed has been more significant though now seems largely overcome by technological advances. The newer contrast detect cameras have AF that's good enough for everything other than fast sports. And some of the new Sony cameras now use phase detect AF (and some of the older SLT cameras claimed to have faster AF than all but the best DSLRs). There also seem to be an increasing number of full frame mirrorless cameras now.
So with the focusing issue largely solved is there anything that will prevent aging DSLR going the same way as the TLRs?
There seem to be only two downsides to mirrorless cameras: battery life and focus speed. The first is not really a technological issue: bigger batteries or carry spares. The issue of focus speed has been more significant though now seems largely overcome by technological advances. The newer contrast detect cameras have AF that's good enough for everything other than fast sports. And some of the new Sony cameras now use phase detect AF (and some of the older SLT cameras claimed to have faster AF than all but the best DSLRs). There also seem to be an increasing number of full frame mirrorless cameras now.
So with the focusing issue largely solved is there anything that will prevent aging DSLR going the same way as the TLRs?
In reply to stp:
You look more professional with a big camera (i.e. DSLR with a bigish lens and an external flash with Lumiquest Big Bounce diffuser). I found that I was a lot braver in the crowd to get through. Everyone knows you aren't messing around (even if you actually do). Getting good shots becomes a lot easier in clubs or events.
My E-PL5 with pancake lens (Lumix 20mm) just looks so tiny. It does not even have a flash built in, nor OVF/EVF. I found that a lot less people try to mimic me now as they do not see "the professional in the crowd", if you know what I mean.
So yes... for home (not literally) user, the mirrorless is just way much better. Smaller, lighter, good choice of good quality but cheaper lens. The photo quality is more than enough. For commercial use, I couldn't imagine using mirrorless camera. It would be mainly confidence (and then ergonomics/slower focus speed/etc.) thing for me, though.
You look more professional with a big camera (i.e. DSLR with a bigish lens and an external flash with Lumiquest Big Bounce diffuser). I found that I was a lot braver in the crowd to get through. Everyone knows you aren't messing around (even if you actually do). Getting good shots becomes a lot easier in clubs or events.
My E-PL5 with pancake lens (Lumix 20mm) just looks so tiny. It does not even have a flash built in, nor OVF/EVF. I found that a lot less people try to mimic me now as they do not see "the professional in the crowd", if you know what I mean.
So yes... for home (not literally) user, the mirrorless is just way much better. Smaller, lighter, good choice of good quality but cheaper lens. The photo quality is more than enough. For commercial use, I couldn't imagine using mirrorless camera. It would be mainly confidence (and then ergonomics/slower focus speed/etc.) thing for me, though.
In reply to stp:
For me the issue (or at least the perceived issue) is cost vs image quality. When I looked at this a while back it seemed liked you needed to drop at least £500 for a decent mirrorless which would probably still struggle to get close to the IQ of a £250 SLR. Personally I don't find mirrorless interchangeable lense formats that appealing. If I were to move away from SLR I'd probably go the whole hog and get a compact such as the Sony RX100 IV, but this is also flipping expensive.
For me the issue (or at least the perceived issue) is cost vs image quality. When I looked at this a while back it seemed liked you needed to drop at least £500 for a decent mirrorless which would probably still struggle to get close to the IQ of a £250 SLR. Personally I don't find mirrorless interchangeable lense formats that appealing. If I were to move away from SLR I'd probably go the whole hog and get a compact such as the Sony RX100 IV, but this is also flipping expensive.
2
In reply to stp:
Olympus seem to think so. I'm actually in the market for a new camera after having my DSLR and lenses stolen. If I stick with Olympus it will almost certainly be a mirrorless replacement.
I quite like the look of the Fujifilm XT and X Pro models as well.
What are you using?
Olympus seem to think so. I'm actually in the market for a new camera after having my DSLR and lenses stolen. If I stick with Olympus it will almost certainly be a mirrorless replacement.
I quite like the look of the Fujifilm XT and X Pro models as well.
What are you using?
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Fujifilm lenses are significantly more expensive! It's something to consider carefully before you commit...
Fujifilm lenses are significantly more expensive! It's something to consider carefully before you commit...
In reply to PPP:
Not if you compare them to their DSLR equivalents. Fuji's 56mm f/1.2 costs something like 700£ (I'm not saying that's a bargain, mind you ) versus 1,100£ for Nikon's 85mm f/1.4. And the Fuji lens is probably smaller. m43 is probably cheaper, and even smaller, though you won't get as much bokeh.
As for the topic, I suppose DSLRs will eventually give way to mirrorless, after all even Nikon has filed a patent for a full-frame mirrorless camera, and I reckon I read something similar about Canon. Right now DSLRs still reign supreme over wildlife and sports photography, and I think it'll be quite some time until Olympus, Fuji et al catch up with the quality of Canikon 500/600mm f/4 lenses. Apart from that I can't see why mirrorless wouldn't take the lead eventually, they do make life a lot easier thanks to their EVFs ("what you see is what you get") and portability. Poor battery life is a nuisance though, but I imagine it'll get better...
In saying that, I'm not so sure I want to switch to mirrorless as more and more the process of taking the picture is simplified, and turning the aperture ring or top dials is part of what I like about photography. I also prefer looking through a piece of glass (OVF) than through a screen (EVF), I already spend too much time in front of a monitor for work. I've been enjoying taking some photos with an old film camera recently, haven't seen the results yet but if they're not too lousy I might actually stick to it.
Not if you compare them to their DSLR equivalents. Fuji's 56mm f/1.2 costs something like 700£ (I'm not saying that's a bargain, mind you ) versus 1,100£ for Nikon's 85mm f/1.4. And the Fuji lens is probably smaller. m43 is probably cheaper, and even smaller, though you won't get as much bokeh.
As for the topic, I suppose DSLRs will eventually give way to mirrorless, after all even Nikon has filed a patent for a full-frame mirrorless camera, and I reckon I read something similar about Canon. Right now DSLRs still reign supreme over wildlife and sports photography, and I think it'll be quite some time until Olympus, Fuji et al catch up with the quality of Canikon 500/600mm f/4 lenses. Apart from that I can't see why mirrorless wouldn't take the lead eventually, they do make life a lot easier thanks to their EVFs ("what you see is what you get") and portability. Poor battery life is a nuisance though, but I imagine it'll get better...
In saying that, I'm not so sure I want to switch to mirrorless as more and more the process of taking the picture is simplified, and turning the aperture ring or top dials is part of what I like about photography. I also prefer looking through a piece of glass (OVF) than through a screen (EVF), I already spend too much time in front of a monitor for work. I've been enjoying taking some photos with an old film camera recently, haven't seen the results yet but if they're not too lousy I might actually stick to it.
1
In reply to stp:
Actually I wonder if both might go the way of the dodo now that with powerful onboard computers, more novel designs such as the light-field camera are feasible. I suspect that this might be some way off yet, though.
> I've been using a mirrorless camera for around 3 years now and have long thought that this format would be the death knell for the DSLR. I was interested to read a top fashion photographer's blog yesterday who thought the same thing.
Actually I wonder if both might go the way of the dodo now that with powerful onboard computers, more novel designs such as the light-field camera are feasible. I suspect that this might be some way off yet, though.
In reply to Adrien:
> ... I'm not so sure I want to switch to mirrorless as more and more the process of taking the picture is simplified, and turning the aperture ring or top dials is part of what I like about photography.
Fujis and Olympuses let you do this. Fuji (haven't really used an Olympus) offer the best of digital and analogue functions for me.> I also prefer looking through a piece of glass (OVF) than through a screen (EVF).
I don't much like screens on cameras but an EVF doesn't seem like a screen to me when I've got my eye pressed against it.In reply to Solaris:
Yeah that's why I've been considering Fuji X for a while (as far as I know Olympus doesn't offer aperture rings and speed/ISO dials, and there's only a handful of Panasonic lenses with an aperture ring - but I might be wrong). I actually own the Fuji X100 (the original one) and quite like it. But the EVF refresh rate is too slow, and since the OVF doesn't cover the entire frame (only 90%) it is pretty much useless for composition. I had a peer through the X-T1's EVF and I was blown away by how big and bright it was. Still though, I prefer looking through the viewfinder of my (now defunct) Nikon D7000, or of my film Chinon CM5. I don't feel like there's something standing between me and the subject as I do with an EVF. But of course that's entirely personal and maybe EVFs will become so good they'll mimic the feel of an OVF.
Yeah that's why I've been considering Fuji X for a while (as far as I know Olympus doesn't offer aperture rings and speed/ISO dials, and there's only a handful of Panasonic lenses with an aperture ring - but I might be wrong). I actually own the Fuji X100 (the original one) and quite like it. But the EVF refresh rate is too slow, and since the OVF doesn't cover the entire frame (only 90%) it is pretty much useless for composition. I had a peer through the X-T1's EVF and I was blown away by how big and bright it was. Still though, I prefer looking through the viewfinder of my (now defunct) Nikon D7000, or of my film Chinon CM5. I don't feel like there's something standing between me and the subject as I do with an EVF. But of course that's entirely personal and maybe EVFs will become so good they'll mimic the feel of an OVF.
1
In reply to stp:
I've been using both Fuji X and Canon 5 series for the past year. Neither system is perfect, but nothing is. Both are fantastic. I'm selling the Fuji.
I've been using both Fuji X and Canon 5 series for the past year. Neither system is perfect, but nothing is. Both are fantastic. I'm selling the Fuji.
1
In reply to Adrien:
>"maybe EVFs will ... mimic the feel of an OVF"<
I hope they don't become that bad.
>"maybe EVFs will ... mimic the feel of an OVF"<
I hope they don't become that bad.
In reply to The New NickB:
Currently using a Panasonic G3. I really like it. Sometime fantasize about a full frame camera though. But even though the mirrorless full frame cameras are smaller the lenses would still be pretty hefty and so probably stick with this for a while. I really like the smaller, portable aspect of micro four thirds. Full frame DSLRs seem particularly hefty.
Currently using a Panasonic G3. I really like it. Sometime fantasize about a full frame camera though. But even though the mirrorless full frame cameras are smaller the lenses would still be pretty hefty and so probably stick with this for a while. I really like the smaller, portable aspect of micro four thirds. Full frame DSLRs seem particularly hefty.
1
In reply to stp:
Sony A7 series? FF mirrorless, can use most lenses (with adapter). It's own range of lenses (small but expanding).
I can see a future where dslrs stop existing. It's still the best for now, though.
Some thoughts from a Yosemite landscape photographer
http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2014/04/18/sony-a7r/
Sony A7 series? FF mirrorless, can use most lenses (with adapter). It's own range of lenses (small but expanding).
I can see a future where dslrs stop existing. It's still the best for now, though.
Some thoughts from a Yosemite landscape photographer
http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2014/04/18/sony-a7r/
1
In reply to Adrien:
This was a concern of mine a few years ago. I went to a shop and tried looking through one of the Sony cameras. My first thought was that they'd given me the wrong camera since It seemed as though I was looking straight through the lens. In other words I couldn't tell the difference between an EVF and DSLR. I was most impressed. And of course there are a load of advantages to EVFs.
> I also prefer looking through a piece of glass (OVF) than through a screen (EVF), I already spend too much time in front of a monitor for work.
This was a concern of mine a few years ago. I went to a shop and tried looking through one of the Sony cameras. My first thought was that they'd given me the wrong camera since It seemed as though I was looking straight through the lens. In other words I couldn't tell the difference between an EVF and DSLR. I was most impressed. And of course there are a load of advantages to EVFs.
3
In reply to Adrien:
Ah, OK. And you've now reminded me that I took against the Olympus for precisely the reason you give when I had a brief play with one recently. Fujis are *real* cameras, as you'll know from your X100.
Sounds like you should be contacting biped to see what he's offering.
Ah, OK. And you've now reminded me that I took against the Olympus for precisely the reason you give when I had a brief play with one recently. Fujis are *real* cameras, as you'll know from your X100.
Sounds like you should be contacting biped to see what he's offering.
In reply to tk421:
Really interesting and thorough review. The Sony A7s look like a very attractive full frame camera. Makes my own 3 year old camera seem rather out of date now: no focus peaking, zebras or wifi. Focus peaking sounds really attractive as I've been using two old manual focus Pentax lenses with my camera. With fast manual focusing there's a whole world of high quality, low priced, second hand lenses to take advantage of. The limited number of native lenses and the expense of the lens adapter are the off putting things at present though.
Really interesting and thorough review. The Sony A7s look like a very attractive full frame camera. Makes my own 3 year old camera seem rather out of date now: no focus peaking, zebras or wifi. Focus peaking sounds really attractive as I've been using two old manual focus Pentax lenses with my camera. With fast manual focusing there's a whole world of high quality, low priced, second hand lenses to take advantage of. The limited number of native lenses and the expense of the lens adapter are the off putting things at present though.
In reply to stp: >"The Sony A7s look like a very attractive full frame camera. ... The limited number of native lenses and the expense of the lens adapter are the off putting things at present though."<
---------------------------
If you're OK with manual focus and a mechanical aperture ring (I never use AF or any auto modes), an A7II is a really good buy because its sensor is stabilised, and you'll have a choice of hundreds of (effectively stabilised) manual lenses that you'll pay peanuts for. Here are a few examples ...
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3928492
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3931598
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3929236
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3928120
---------------------------
If you're OK with manual focus and a mechanical aperture ring (I never use AF or any auto modes), an A7II is a really good buy because its sensor is stabilised, and you'll have a choice of hundreds of (effectively stabilised) manual lenses that you'll pay peanuts for. Here are a few examples ...
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3928492
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3931598
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3929236
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3928120
In reply to stp:
Like I said I found the X-T1's EVF to be absolutely fantastic, I remember being really astounded by how massive it was. So yes EVFs can be good, there's no denying that, they're just different from OVFs.
@Solaris: Oly's lenses are quite a bit smaller than Fuji's though, and after reading dozens of tests and comparisons it seems that Fuji cameras don't really outresolve the O-MD line. It seems the X-Trans sensor was overhyped and you don't really gain anything from it being larger than the m43. So if I were to reason in a purely rational way, I would choose Olympus. I really like the aperture ring though... I'll have a play with several Fujis and Olympuses next week to see how they handle.
Like I said I found the X-T1's EVF to be absolutely fantastic, I remember being really astounded by how massive it was. So yes EVFs can be good, there's no denying that, they're just different from OVFs.
@Solaris: Oly's lenses are quite a bit smaller than Fuji's though, and after reading dozens of tests and comparisons it seems that Fuji cameras don't really outresolve the O-MD line. It seems the X-Trans sensor was overhyped and you don't really gain anything from it being larger than the m43. So if I were to reason in a purely rational way, I would choose Olympus. I really like the aperture ring though... I'll have a play with several Fujis and Olympuses next week to see how they handle.
In reply to stp:
For me EVFs have a long way to go before they replace OVFs. They have some advantages working in poor light, with slow lenses, or critical manual focus, but none of which can't be achieved with liveview. What they can't do is present you a clear view of the world. On my Sony A7 even if I turn off all 'aids' like zebras, peaking gridlines etc the properties of the digital display are simply distracting from the image it displays. The resolution is not high enough to show the transitions in and out of focus, sharp areas shimmer, and the colour rendition is poor. Photography for me is about trying to capture little slices of reality. For that I need to have a clear view of reality first.
For me EVFs have a long way to go before they replace OVFs. They have some advantages working in poor light, with slow lenses, or critical manual focus, but none of which can't be achieved with liveview. What they can't do is present you a clear view of the world. On my Sony A7 even if I turn off all 'aids' like zebras, peaking gridlines etc the properties of the digital display are simply distracting from the image it displays. The resolution is not high enough to show the transitions in and out of focus, sharp areas shimmer, and the colour rendition is poor. Photography for me is about trying to capture little slices of reality. For that I need to have a clear view of reality first.
6
In reply to Adam Long:
That reasoning suggests it'd be better to look at the scene through one's eyes and use any viewfinder (EVF or OVF) for framing. While I genuinely respect the opinions of those who are more comfortable using one technology over another, having also used film SLR's and dSLR's, I'm convinced that an EVF is a better all round tool for most photography.
That reasoning suggests it'd be better to look at the scene through one's eyes and use any viewfinder (EVF or OVF) for framing. While I genuinely respect the opinions of those who are more comfortable using one technology over another, having also used film SLR's and dSLR's, I'm convinced that an EVF is a better all round tool for most photography.
1
In reply to stp:
I'm a total Fuji convert. My usage is far from professional, but I'd describe myself as an advanced enthusiast and I have had a number of photos published (plus I regularly submit photos for use in magazine features). I use a Fuji X-E1 which offers amazing image quality in a small and light package with the controls I'm used to from film SLRs. Plus, with the right adapter, you can use virtually any kind of manual lens. It's win-win as far as I'm concerned.
However, for certain circumstances I think DSLRs will be hard to dethrone. There are still significant limitations in using the Fuji platform for wildlife photography, for example.
I'm a total Fuji convert. My usage is far from professional, but I'd describe myself as an advanced enthusiast and I have had a number of photos published (plus I regularly submit photos for use in magazine features). I use a Fuji X-E1 which offers amazing image quality in a small and light package with the controls I'm used to from film SLRs. Plus, with the right adapter, you can use virtually any kind of manual lens. It's win-win as far as I'm concerned.
However, for certain circumstances I think DSLRs will be hard to dethrone. There are still significant limitations in using the Fuji platform for wildlife photography, for example.
In reply to stp:
Downside 3: The display technology in mirrorless camera electronic view finders is nowhere near as good at conveying dynamic range as the optics are. The lag is not imperceptible. The resolution is distinguishably lower than an optical view finder.
The technology behind all of these is improving, but is not there yet.
I enjoy using an optical view finder far more, and there for a boresighted view down the interchangeable lens the dSLR is still king. For now...
Edit: If the crappy dynamic range of the EVF is matched to the sensor then there is an argument that you are viewing something closer to the image captured than with an OVF, to which I can see benefits. That however is not what I want most of the time, and when I do there's a nice big screen to look at instead. I don't see why you can't design a camera that fuses both OVF and EVF into one unit, akin to the Microsoft HoloLens prototypes, using selective overlay of the EVF for annotation of the real view, and switching to an electric view when required.
Downside 3: The display technology in mirrorless camera electronic view finders is nowhere near as good at conveying dynamic range as the optics are. The lag is not imperceptible. The resolution is distinguishably lower than an optical view finder.
The technology behind all of these is improving, but is not there yet.
I enjoy using an optical view finder far more, and there for a boresighted view down the interchangeable lens the dSLR is still king. For now...
Edit: If the crappy dynamic range of the EVF is matched to the sensor then there is an argument that you are viewing something closer to the image captured than with an OVF, to which I can see benefits. That however is not what I want most of the time, and when I do there's a nice big screen to look at instead. I don't see why you can't design a camera that fuses both OVF and EVF into one unit, akin to the Microsoft HoloLens prototypes, using selective overlay of the EVF for annotation of the real view, and switching to an electric view when required.
Post edited at 13:45
In reply to wintertree:
I used to think the same, but in practice* I find there's hardly any difference between an optical viewfinder and the EVF – even on my X-E1, which was widely criticised for having a slow viewfinder. Looking at the scene with your eyes before lifting the camera to your face tells you everything you need to know.
*For my use case, obviously, which doesn't include fast action photography and mainly consists of landscapes. Other users will find the difference more or less important.
I used to think the same, but in practice* I find there's hardly any difference between an optical viewfinder and the EVF – even on my X-E1, which was widely criticised for having a slow viewfinder. Looking at the scene with your eyes before lifting the camera to your face tells you everything you need to know.
*For my use case, obviously, which doesn't include fast action photography and mainly consists of landscapes. Other users will find the difference more or less important.
In reply to wintertree:
Just seen your addendum! Several models of Fuji have achieved this OVF/EVF combination you speak of. It's been around for several years now.
Just seen your addendum! Several models of Fuji have achieved this OVF/EVF combination you speak of. It's been around for several years now.
In reply to stp:
I can't get along with the mirrorless view finders I've tried; looking through them for too long actually makes me feel nauseous. Which is a shame because other than that I like everything about them, but for now I'll stick with my DSLR.
I can't get along with the mirrorless view finders I've tried; looking through them for too long actually makes me feel nauseous. Which is a shame because other than that I like everything about them, but for now I'll stick with my DSLR.
In reply to moffatross:
Well, yes, the longer I do photography the less I need a camera. Don't get me wrong, the advantages of EVFs are clear to me and for extreme macro work, for instance, they're a revelation. For landscape and action photography - and climbing photography generally falls between these - for me EVFs are not there yet. Wintertree lists the failings well. Judging by phone screens we might only be five years away from sufficient technical quality, but it will also depend on the manufacturers giving us the option of an uncluttered view.
> That reasoning suggests it'd be better to look at the scene through one's eyes and use any viewfinder (EVF or OVF) for framing.
Well, yes, the longer I do photography the less I need a camera. Don't get me wrong, the advantages of EVFs are clear to me and for extreme macro work, for instance, they're a revelation. For landscape and action photography - and climbing photography generally falls between these - for me EVFs are not there yet. Wintertree lists the failings well. Judging by phone screens we might only be five years away from sufficient technical quality, but it will also depend on the manufacturers giving us the option of an uncluttered view.
In reply to Kieran_John:
That's probably due to the lag in the system - it takes a bit of time to grab a frame, pass it on to the screen and display it so the movement on the screen doesn't quite match up with what your inner ear is telling you.
It's a bit of a fundamental problem, and fixing it is hard.
As an aside, you get similar issues with VR goggles.
That's probably due to the lag in the system - it takes a bit of time to grab a frame, pass it on to the screen and display it so the movement on the screen doesn't quite match up with what your inner ear is telling you.
It's a bit of a fundamental problem, and fixing it is hard.
As an aside, you get similar issues with VR goggles.
In reply to Adam Long:
I find for climbing photography you need to anticipate the moment when you will press the shutter, whatever type of viewfinder you are using. Certainly on my mirrorless camera the lag between my brain thinking 'time to press the shutter' and my finger pressing it is far longer than the lag introduced by the EVF. As for clutter, I'm pretty sure I've got the option to get rid of all the crap if I want to.
I find for climbing photography you need to anticipate the moment when you will press the shutter, whatever type of viewfinder you are using. Certainly on my mirrorless camera the lag between my brain thinking 'time to press the shutter' and my finger pressing it is far longer than the lag introduced by the EVF. As for clutter, I'm pretty sure I've got the option to get rid of all the crap if I want to.
In reply to Adam Long:
I find this interesting as I'm currently writing a piece for my university course on design innovation and this seems like a great example of disruptive innovation in progress, but not there yet. [apologies for factual inaccuracies and errors - I'm writing this with no research, off the top of my head]
The first digital compact cameras had terrible OVFs. DSLRs had classic SLR viewfinders so were vastly superior.
Then EVFs came along. At first they were terrible. Some people (early adopters and tech enthusiasts most likely) bought cameras with EVFs anyway because they had other good features. The mainstream camera manufacturers were wary of them (Nikon/Canon/Pentax etc.).
Then m4/3ds came out and EVFs were necessary and in some cases advantageous. Still Canon/Nikon etc. don't adopt them in the DSLRs. The mainstream accepts them - more because m4/3 (and equiv.) are more compact and "good enough" IQ.
That brings us to now and to Sony (who has no legacy in film/DSLRs) who have pushed it right into the full-frame pro mirrorless "DSLR Replacement" market. Leica has followed suit, but Canon/Nikon/Pentax are lagging and might come to regret it.
Still not everyone is convinced that EVFs quite match up to the performance of a good OVF. However, the rate of improvement is fast, unlike OVFs which have not really changed for years. As you said, it will not be long until it catches up and inevitably surpasses the OVF.
I full predict EVFs will totally wipe out DSLRs and OVFs and anything other than niche "classic" ranges. The mirror is an anachronism desperately holding on in its death throws.
> Don't get me wrong, the advantages of EVFs are clear to me and for extreme macro work, for instance, they're a revelation. For landscape and action photography - and climbing photography generally falls between these - for me EVFs are not there yet.
I find this interesting as I'm currently writing a piece for my university course on design innovation and this seems like a great example of disruptive innovation in progress, but not there yet. [apologies for factual inaccuracies and errors - I'm writing this with no research, off the top of my head]
The first digital compact cameras had terrible OVFs. DSLRs had classic SLR viewfinders so were vastly superior.
Then EVFs came along. At first they were terrible. Some people (early adopters and tech enthusiasts most likely) bought cameras with EVFs anyway because they had other good features. The mainstream camera manufacturers were wary of them (Nikon/Canon/Pentax etc.).
Then m4/3ds came out and EVFs were necessary and in some cases advantageous. Still Canon/Nikon etc. don't adopt them in the DSLRs. The mainstream accepts them - more because m4/3 (and equiv.) are more compact and "good enough" IQ.
That brings us to now and to Sony (who has no legacy in film/DSLRs) who have pushed it right into the full-frame pro mirrorless "DSLR Replacement" market. Leica has followed suit, but Canon/Nikon/Pentax are lagging and might come to regret it.
Still not everyone is convinced that EVFs quite match up to the performance of a good OVF. However, the rate of improvement is fast, unlike OVFs which have not really changed for years. As you said, it will not be long until it catches up and inevitably surpasses the OVF.
I full predict EVFs will totally wipe out DSLRs and OVFs and anything other than niche "classic" ranges. The mirror is an anachronism desperately holding on in its death throws.
Post edited at 16:31
1
In reply to Fultonius:
It's probably worth noting that the OVF had its best days in the 70s & 80s. Once autofocus and program came along the viewfinder was something that fell down the priority list as it doesn't look so impressive on a spec sheet. I stuck with Olympus OMs for years because of this, and DSLR viewfinders have always felt like a step back. Another reason why pros bother to lug around a top level body because they are the only ones that retained decent viewfinders. I suspect some if not all top end bodies will retain proper viewfinders for many years, even if they become hybrid. If you want a really good electronic display it can always plug in as like the ones cinematographers use. For consumer bodies though, I'm sure EVFs will soon take over. Despite the complexity they are now much cheaper to produce than the prism, lenses and precise alignment required for an OVF.
It's probably worth noting that the OVF had its best days in the 70s & 80s. Once autofocus and program came along the viewfinder was something that fell down the priority list as it doesn't look so impressive on a spec sheet. I stuck with Olympus OMs for years because of this, and DSLR viewfinders have always felt like a step back. Another reason why pros bother to lug around a top level body because they are the only ones that retained decent viewfinders. I suspect some if not all top end bodies will retain proper viewfinders for many years, even if they become hybrid. If you want a really good electronic display it can always plug in as like the ones cinematographers use. For consumer bodies though, I'm sure EVFs will soon take over. Despite the complexity they are now much cheaper to produce than the prism, lenses and precise alignment required for an OVF.
1
In reply to Fultonius:
Hmm. That doesn't sound like a dissertation, more a statement of belief.
Perhaps some research might be a good idea? You might want to look at why EVFs have the limitations that they do and consider what needs to change to overcome them.
Also, innovation is rarely about technology - it's mainly about business models and human behaviour. You needs to think about EVF might affect those.
> ... I'm currently writing a piece for my university course on design innovation and ... I'm writing this with no research, off the top of my head...
Hmm. That doesn't sound like a dissertation, more a statement of belief.
Perhaps some research might be a good idea? You might want to look at why EVFs have the limitations that they do and consider what needs to change to overcome them.
Also, innovation is rarely about technology - it's mainly about business models and human behaviour. You needs to think about EVF might affect those.
In reply to Marek: Ha. You hit the nail on the head.
The essay is not about cameras, just design innovation. I wrote all of that off the top of my head because it seemed to fit the model quite well.
The essay is not about cameras, just design innovation. I wrote all of that off the top of my head because it seemed to fit the model quite well.
In reply to stp:
Last year I ditched my dslr and got a Fuji X-T1, and have never regretted it. The build quality is very good and their lenses are exceptional. The 60mm f1.2 is the best lens I have ever used. The elf is also exceptional and it is great for studio work as you see the photograph instantly through the viewfinder which can be very useful.
Last year I ditched my dslr and got a Fuji X-T1, and have never regretted it. The build quality is very good and their lenses are exceptional. The 60mm f1.2 is the best lens I have ever used. The elf is also exceptional and it is great for studio work as you see the photograph instantly through the viewfinder which can be very useful.
2
In reply to Fultonius:
I agree the mirror and pentaprism has probably had its day but I'm not keen on designs that also ditch the physical shutter entirely. I really like the results of those LENR systems that generate dark frames on the spot, and you can't do that if the camera is open all the time.
The downside of an evf + "real" shutter is that there is additional lag when you press the button of course.
I agree the mirror and pentaprism has probably had its day but I'm not keen on designs that also ditch the physical shutter entirely. I really like the results of those LENR systems that generate dark frames on the spot, and you can't do that if the camera is open all the time.
The downside of an evf + "real" shutter is that there is additional lag when you press the button of course.
In reply to davidbeynon:
Electronic first curtain, physical second curtain, seems to be best of both worlds.
Electronic first curtain, physical second curtain, seems to be best of both worlds.
In reply to Adam Long:
That would be ideal. Which manufacturers do that?
Serious question as a large sensor mirrorless with good manual controls, physical shutter & LENR for night time would be sufficient to make me ditch the SLR.
That would be ideal. Which manufacturers do that?
Serious question as a large sensor mirrorless with good manual controls, physical shutter & LENR for night time would be sufficient to make me ditch the SLR.
Post edited at 12:37
In reply to icnoble:
Another thumbs up for the Fuji X-T1.
Do you mean the 56mm f1.2?
> Last year I ditched my dslr and got a Fuji X-T1, and have never regretted it. The build quality is very good and their lenses are exceptional. The 60mm f1.2 is the best lens I have ever used. The elf is also exceptional and it is great for studio work as you see the photograph instantly through the viewfinder which can be very useful.
Another thumbs up for the Fuji X-T1.
Do you mean the 56mm f1.2?
1
In reply to davidbeynon:
Sony A7R2 does that. You can also configure it to have a silent shutter (electronic first and second curtains), though I think that that has image quality implications.
Sony A7R2 does that. You can also configure it to have a silent shutter (electronic first and second curtains), though I think that that has image quality implications.
In reply to John2:
All the Sony FF A7x series have user selectable electronic first curtain shutter & mechanical second shutter, except for the A7R (mechanical only)
> Sony A7R2 does that. You can also configure it to have a silent shutter (electronic first and second curtains), though I think that that has image quality implications.
All the Sony FF A7x series have user selectable electronic first curtain shutter & mechanical second shutter, except for the A7R (mechanical only)
In reply to davidbeynon:
Sony A7II (not A7RII) long exposure in Blackhope Glen, Moffat, a couple of months ago. Used a tripod (sensor stabilisation switched off) and a 10 second exposure with LENR and a 40 yr old Minolta Rokkor 35 mm focal length lens. Pixel peep the original 24MP image here ... https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/762/21404316264_da584e009c_o.jpg
Here's another long exposure by moonlight ... https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/591/21567319510_a18fbc7c1e_o.jpg
> That would be ideal. Which manufacturers do that?
> Serious question as a large sensor mirrorless with good manual controls, physical shutter & LENR for night time would be sufficient to make me ditch the SLR.
Sony A7II (not A7RII) long exposure in Blackhope Glen, Moffat, a couple of months ago. Used a tripod (sensor stabilisation switched off) and a 10 second exposure with LENR and a 40 yr old Minolta Rokkor 35 mm focal length lens. Pixel peep the original 24MP image here ... https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/762/21404316264_da584e009c_o.jpg
Here's another long exposure by moonlight ... https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/591/21567319510_a18fbc7c1e_o.jpg
Post edited at 16:29
In reply to davidbeynon:
Well, I've ahead the Sony A7 a month so far and will not be ditching the SLR. I think it will have its uses but the handling leaves a lot to be desired. For manual controls Fuji might be a better bet but the sensors are not in the same league. Depends what lenses you are planning to use too, the main reason I bought one was to mount all the legacy glass I've picked up over the years.
> Serious question as a large sensor mirrorless with good manual controls, physical shutter & LENR for night time would be sufficient to make me ditch the SLR.
Well, I've ahead the Sony A7 a month so far and will not be ditching the SLR. I think it will have its uses but the handling leaves a lot to be desired. For manual controls Fuji might be a better bet but the sensors are not in the same league. Depends what lenses you are planning to use too, the main reason I bought one was to mount all the legacy glass I've picked up over the years.
In reply to Adam Long: >"Well, I've ahead the Sony A7 a month so far and will not be ditching the SLR. I think it will have its uses but the handling leaves a lot to be desired."<
That suggests it's more than just the OEM lens options that are lacking. Can you explain what you mean, possibly linking to some of your photos demonstrating how the camera with the better handling gets you better images ?
That suggests it's more than just the OEM lens options that are lacking. Can you explain what you mean, possibly linking to some of your photos demonstrating how the camera with the better handling gets you better images ?
So, like I said last week I went and had a peer through the EVFs of some cameras, namely the Fuji X-T10 and the Olys EM-10 II and EM-5 II. What a let down. It's strange but as soon as I look through it I have an unpleasant sensation in my eye, like when I've spent too much time on the computer. I don't remember feeling like that with the X-T1, I'll have to give it another try. Plus the lag on the E-M5 was very noticeable! Also, while smaller is very handy when hiking or traveling, I'm not a huge fan of how the Olys handled (the X-T10 fared slightly better); I have small hands yet they feel a bit small, the grip on my D7000 is so much better. But given that said D7000 is clinically dead after being in contact with water, I'll have to buy something else anyway... Decisions, decisions.
In reply to Adrien:
If you are veering back to the SLR fold, have you looked at the Nikon D750? Aside from the excellent reviews, it is quite small and light considering what it is. I tried one and found it a bit petite, but I have shovels and I don't really like anything smaller than my 5d3. You may prefer it to the mirrorless options and it is FF, plus you get all those lovely Nikon lenses.
If you are veering back to the SLR fold, have you looked at the Nikon D750? Aside from the excellent reviews, it is quite small and light considering what it is. I tried one and found it a bit petite, but I have shovels and I don't really like anything smaller than my 5d3. You may prefer it to the mirrorless options and it is FF, plus you get all those lovely Nikon lenses.
In reply to Adrien:
I'm pretty sure you can adjust the refresh rate on OM-Ds to reduce/eliminate the lag. I guess a lot depends on what you're shooting though.
I'm pretty sure you can adjust the refresh rate on OM-Ds to reduce/eliminate the lag. I guess a lot depends on what you're shooting though.
In reply to Removed User:
Ah yes the D750 looks fantastic by all accounts, but even on the second-hand market it's fairly expensive. For the same price I could buy an X-T1 and two or three lenses, which could fit in my pockets. I think I'm not willing anymore to have a DSLR+lens hanging around my neck when I'm hiking, even though I love the feel of a DSLR. Being able to fit my Fuji X100 in the inner pocket of my jacket on my last trip was great (though the 35mm FoV was limiting).
Toerag: You may be right, I only held it for a few minutes to see how it handled. But the way the image "drifted" seemed very strange, although on the plus side it wasn't twitchy.
Ah yes the D750 looks fantastic by all accounts, but even on the second-hand market it's fairly expensive. For the same price I could buy an X-T1 and two or three lenses, which could fit in my pockets. I think I'm not willing anymore to have a DSLR+lens hanging around my neck when I'm hiking, even though I love the feel of a DSLR. Being able to fit my Fuji X100 in the inner pocket of my jacket on my last trip was great (though the 35mm FoV was limiting).
Toerag: You may be right, I only held it for a few minutes to see how it handled. But the way the image "drifted" seemed very strange, although on the plus side it wasn't twitchy.
In reply to PPP:
I was taking some photos a couple of months ago at the Grand Canyon with My Fuji XE-1 (which I love; all the right dials, rings and knobs, though the lenses are NOT cheap - just bought the XF 10-24...... ouch!). Anyway, quite a crowd had gathered for the sunset. All the punters seemed to be encumbered with huge tripods and hefty full frame DSLR's). But there were a couple of professionals doing a shoot for a magazine - one with a Fuji XT-1 and the other an XE-2. They were singing their praises and, unlike the punters, seemed so much more mobile to react to the rapidly changing light.
> For home (not literally) user, the mirrorless is just way much better. Smaller, lighter, good choice of good quality but cheaper lens. The photo quality is more than enough. For commercial use, I couldn't imagine using mirrorless camera.
I was taking some photos a couple of months ago at the Grand Canyon with My Fuji XE-1 (which I love; all the right dials, rings and knobs, though the lenses are NOT cheap - just bought the XF 10-24...... ouch!). Anyway, quite a crowd had gathered for the sunset. All the punters seemed to be encumbered with huge tripods and hefty full frame DSLR's). But there were a couple of professionals doing a shoot for a magazine - one with a Fuji XT-1 and the other an XE-2. They were singing their praises and, unlike the punters, seemed so much more mobile to react to the rapidly changing light.
3
In reply to Robert Durran:
I sold almost all of my DSLR gear a few months back after going for Fuji. I've kept a wildlife set-up (Canon 5Diii, 600mm lens and a slightly knackered 24-105) because the Fuji isn't quite there yet (a 400mm lens is due to land in 2016) but for everything else, I love my Fuji X-T10.
I sold almost all of my DSLR gear a few months back after going for Fuji. I've kept a wildlife set-up (Canon 5Diii, 600mm lens and a slightly knackered 24-105) because the Fuji isn't quite there yet (a 400mm lens is due to land in 2016) but for everything else, I love my Fuji X-T10.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...