Did " We " the consumer need mirrorless or :-

F1.2

F1.2

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,421
Name
Allen
Edit My Images
Yes
Did we need mirrorless or is it just another way of camera makers devaluing conventional cameras
Also a way of generating millions of £ $. in sales worldwide and keeping them alive ?
 
That’s a fairly cynical view of what is clearly technological advancements in a capitalist world.

We don’t ‘need’ mirrorless, but then we don’t ‘need’ a camera at all. Or a better or faster lens, or a dishwasher, flatscreen tv, or a car.

My 40d still works as well as it ever did, and I ‘could’ carry on using it till one of us dies.

But in reality, it was effectively replaced by the 7d which improved my keeper rate due to its improved AF. Which I then replaced with a 6d, with worse AF but amazing low light performance.

They’re all massively worse than the R6 which focusses better than the 7d by a million miles and also gives me better IQ than the 6d.

Did I need it? Nope, does it improve my picture taking ability? Yeah it does a bit.

So is that just some trick Canon have played on me? Or am I choosing to spend my hard earned on a hobby I get a lot of pleasure from?
 
Phil V said:
That’s a fairly cynical view of what is clearly technological advancements in a capitalist world.

We don’t ‘need’ mirrorless, but then we don’t ‘need’ a camera at all. Or a better or faster lens, or a dishwasher, flatscreen tv, or a car.
Click to expand...
Agreed! Technology needs to keep improving.
 
Mirrorless are cheaper to produce. Not only can you replace the viewfinder/mirror with something electronic, you don't have to calibrate a separate autofocus system. Mirrorless don't need such strong bodies either.

I am not sure whether mirrorless will increase creativity (as you can play with settings and see the changes live) or stifle it (maybe one manufacturer's users can only imagine portraits with a green tint).

In terms of pure sensor performance, some mirrorless are less good than the DSLRs they replaced. But the ability to apply modern computing to the image your sensor sees before the picture is taken opens up massive possibilities.

I look forward to individual auto-ISO on each pixel and logarithmic RAW files.
 
Last edited:
F1.2 said:
Did we need mirrorless or is it just another way of camera makers devaluing conventional cameras
Also a way of generating millions of £ $. in sales worldwide and keeping them alive ?
Click to expand...
In my view, it simplifies the mechanical aspects of the camera, reduces cost and construction complexity, and gives the manufacturers a number of marketing opportunities. Like many new products there are also some benefits (though not sure I’d need 40 fps), but also drawbacks. Personally, I’ve not been impressed with EVFs that I’ve looked through to date, but that may change.
 
It is the nature of technological development to simplify its design. The same could be said about washing machines.
 
I certainly don't 'need' (or want) a mirrorless - I hate EVFs, but that's because I'm a dinosaur and have been using OVFs since the sixties.

Sadly, it's progress. There's only one true constant, and that's change.

When I can't carry the weight of my old medium format film cameras or heavy duty DSLRs and lenses, then I'll probably have to get a mirrorless - then I may need it. The 'need' will be a weight issue though - not an aspiration . . . :coat:
 
Last edited:
Sky said:
The 'need' will be a weight issue though - not an aspiration . . . :coat:
Click to expand...

I’m with you on that - performance aside, another factor for me is the shutter noise. Between carrying a minimum of 6kg of camera gear, and a laptop weighing nearly the same, the only way I made it to the end of Edinburgh Fringe was with hefty painkillers.

But the features, performance and handling of the top-end Canon mirrorlesses far outstrip those of my comparable Nikon DSLRs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Over the last 50 years I have spent a fortune on a multitude of cameras and lenses , Still have most of them , Has my photography improved ? I am not sure.
Not yet owned a mirrorless but have put a offer on one on Ebay ( Used ) I won't pay full rrp for any body / lens due to massive depreciation over the years / decades.
 
Of course we don't 'need' mirrorless.

What most folks (and most certainly I) need is to spend more time learning how to use the kit they have, and understanding the subtle nuances of photography.

The positive spin on new tech causing the previous shiny things to depreciate is you can pick up some great bargains if you resist the latest toys.
 
Plain Nev said:
Mind you. We didn't need digital really. :p
Click to expand...
I think it needs to be in two categories , Photography and digital . Or is it already ?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sky
Mirrorless has many real practical advantages.

More accurate and consistent focus, no micro adjust from body to body and lens to lens.
Being able to focus accurately and consistently anywhere in the frame not just around the central area where DSLR's had their focus points.
Seeing the whole image before you take the shot including being able to see the exposure and the DoF before you take the shot.

There will be more but those three would be enough for me.
 
I went digital with my Canon 350D which I still have back in 2006, then a 7D which still takes the pictures that I want, I'm reluctant to spend a lot of cash that may bring marginal improvements in my picture taking, but not necessarily the image. A bit like upgrading your PC or phone, when it stops doing what I want it's time to upgrade.
 
artyman said:
I went digital with my Canon 350D which I still have back in 2006, then a 7D which still takes the pictures that I want, I'm reluctant to spend a lot of cash that may bring marginal improvements in my picture taking, but not necessarily the image. A bit like upgrading your PC or phone, when it stops doing what I want it's time to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Like with many things "upgrades" will not matter if you don't use them.

One thing which has been a real eye opener for me is eye or even just face detect with the ability to focus anywhere within the frame. This means great compositional freedom when photographing people. Assuming you use AF a DSLR limits where you'd place your subjects eye / face but with mirrorless it can be anywhere in the frame. That one thing on its own could well be enough for some people to go mirrorless.
 
artyman said:
I went digital with my Canon 350D which I still have back in 2006, then a 7D which still takes the pictures that I want, I'm reluctant to spend a lot of cash that may bring marginal improvements in my picture taking, but not necessarily the image. A bit like upgrading your PC or phone, when it stops doing what I want it's time to upgrade.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
Like with many things "upgrades" will not matter if you don't use them.

One thing which has been a real eye opener for me is eye or even just face detect with the ability to focus anywhere within the frame. This means great compositional freedom when photographing people. Assuming you use AF a DSLR limits where you'd place your subjects eye / face but with mirrorless it can be anywhere in the frame. That one thing on its own could well be enough for some people to go mirrorless.
Click to expand...

For me.....

Off the top of my head....

Magnify assist for manual lenses
Vintage lens adaption
Focus peaking
WYSIWYG/live histogram
Permanent 'live view'
Zebras
Silent/Elec/EFCS shutter
Smaller/Lighter bodies
Interval Shooting
IBIS
Face detect
Eye AF
Animal AF
Focus hold button on the lens - eye AF
Elec shutter for timelapse stuff
Bright monitoring
Dual Gain ISO
The 35GM :)
Plus.... many other things I would imagine :)

The only downside that springs to mind, is that you have to switch the camera on to look through & see what a shot/framing will look like without an OVF.
 
LeeRatters said:
The only downside that springs to mind, is that you have to switch the camera on to look through & see what a shot/framing will look like without an OVF.
Click to expand...

Then you get into the OVF v EVF debate. For me EVF's have surpassed OVF's, they show you the whole frame and they allow you to see things which wouldn't be able to be seen when using an unaided optical system.
 
F1.2 said:
Did we need mirrorless or is it just another way of camera makers devaluing conventional cameras
Also a way of generating millions of £ $. in sales worldwide and keeping them alive ?
Click to expand...
Yes, most certainly. If they, the camera makers didn't bring something new out in some cases, not long after the forerunner had only just reached the peak of sales, then they would fold up. People always want something new that will 'make' them a better photographer (in their eyes) when in fact they only go on to produce the same or similar old dross and soon get bored until the newest kit appears with X millions of pixels or new gadget or software, entices them to spend even more money to fatten the wallets of the accountants of the camera and lens makers The the makers depend upon enthusiasts to fill their boots of the owners.

Yes I am a thoroughbred cynic, but it is true.
 
Last edited:
You only need to look at the success of the different camera manufacturers to see that the success of mirrorless cameras have achieved now is due to consumer demand, not from camera manufacturers forcing the technology on consumers. Panasonic and Olympus hadn't been particularly successful with their 4/3 SLR format so abandoned the DSLR market and started releasing micro 4/3 cameras in 2008 and quickly saw success with the new cameras. Sony couldn't match Nikon or Canon in the DSLR market and released their APS-C NEX cameras in 2010 then ditched their DSLR and DSLT market with the new full frame mirrorless A7 cameras which has been a tremendous success for them. Fuji have also had strong sales of their mirrorless range.

Nikon and Canon were in a different position since they dominated the DSLR market and they didn't want to risk sacrificing those cameras with competing mirrorless cameras so instead of abandoning their DSLRs they were more cautious with their mirrorless cameras with the Nikon J system and Canon EOS-M system both of which have been discontinued. They were forced to abandon the DSLR market and take mirrorless seriously because of the strong mirrorless sales and declining DSLR sales, Canon released their first full frame mirrorless camera in 2018 and Nikon in 2019 years behind the original A7 cameras.

I bought into the m4/3 system early with the Panasonic GH1 and GF1 cameras which I used alongside a Nikon D700 DSLR. The GH1 offered the advantage of a more compact setup which could do photo and high quality video so it made for a good general use solution while the GF1's tiny size meant it could fit in a jacket pocket. The Sony A9 was the end of the DSLR for me since it was smaller and lighter than a comparative DSLR, completely silent with no mechanical movement, high burst rate and no blackout. I've more recently changed to the Z8 and its still performance is just incredible, it makes it so easy to track action and get the shots I'm after. Clearly many others have also found mirrorless cameras to be an improvement otherwise they wouldn't have been the success they are.
 
Pixel-based autofocus is a major improvement, while EVF is still somewhat of a s***-show. And they are even skimping on larger LCDs to at least catch up with mobile phones.

So a mixture of tech progress and $-making drive
 
I don't need a computer controlled car, an old Cortina with points and condenser would get me around just as well.
Come to think of it, a horse and cart would probably do too.

Point is, the motor industry and other associated industries that use the same technologies, are not focused on what I want or need, but on collective needs.
Most of the technology behind mirrorless is no doubt used in other fields as well, photography as such is probably just a small part of it.

It has given me a lot more enjoyment though :)
 
Agree with all the reasons above
Even simple things for example the eye detection autofocus allows me to just concentrate on composition, getting the animal in the right place in the frame and waiting for the right moment
Just that one thing is worth it for me
 
Surely a conventional camera has plate film and exposure is achieved by sliding a blind out and back in.
 
Pound Coin said:
Surely a conventional camera has plate film and exposure is achieved by sliding a blind out and back in.
Click to expand...
Whatever gave you that idea? :) That would just give very uneven exposure. The method was to take the lens cap off and then put it back on again.
But you're right, all improvements to technology are incremental and we don't actually "need" them.
:exit:
 
LeeRatters said:
Oh, completely agree Alan.

I do still like to look through an OVF occasionally though :)
Click to expand...
Both my Nikon F6 and F2a give me a full frame view and the F2a is 44 years old (one of the last) so nothing is new. I cannot understand why dslr's don't all give a full frame view. The cropped images of the past in film cameras seems to have crossed over to dslr's for no reason. I understand the cropped image was to cater for the users of slide film who lost roughly the same proportion of each frame of slide film when they were mounted.
 
Rodinal said:
Both my Nikon F6 and F2a give me a full frame view and the F2a is 44 years old (one of the last) so nothing is new. I cannot understand why dslr's don't all give a full frame view. The cropped images of the past in film cameras seems to have crossed over to dslr's for no reason. I understand the cropped image was to cater for the users of slide film who lost roughly the same proportion of each frame of slide film when they were mounted.
Click to expand...
The %view a DSLR gives depends on the PentaPrism - for a 100% view the PentaPrism needs to be larger, and hence more expensive - so the top end DSLR give 100% views, the more 'budget' cameras had slightly restricted views. The real budget models had PentaMirrors (cheaper) rather than PentaPrisms.

The best EVF still don't have the clarity of the best OVF (they are getting steadily better though, and bring other advantages, so on balance a decent EVF is as good overall as a good OVF), but when you look at the entry level models, the EVF's on the entry level cameras today is far more usable than the truely awful pentmirror OVF's that were found on some entry level DSLR.
 
Forums in general and particularly photography forums tend to have an older crowd.

Older people don't embrace change in the same way that younger people do. Hence stupid posts like manufacturers only introduced mirrorless so they could devalue old kit and make more money.

My next door neighbour was a wedding photographer donkeys years ago but jacked it in when people started to switch to digital, he is still very much of a mind that digital killed off wedding photography as in his words digital killed of the skill level needed to shoot a wedding which meant that anyone could do it. With me also being a wedding photographer we have lots of conversations over the back fence about wedding photography and photography in general. Being older he can't wrap his head around at all what the expectations are of a photographer for younger people getting married.

While he hates digital in general he does have a couple of old DSLR bodies and mirrorless completely disgusts him even more than digital. Why would you need that etc. :ROFLMAO:

I can only say from my own point of view that mirrorless technology has made a huge difference to the way I work and without that technology what I deliver to clients would be very different.

Could I shoot a wedding only on film, yes. Could I shoot a wedding using DSLR's, yes and did for many years before switching. Could I deliver what I do now using film or DSLR's, no absolutely not. Could I meet the expectations clients have now shooting film, absolutely not! Could I shoot a wedding with DSLR's and meet the expectations clients have now, no I probably couldn't. Do clients need what there expectations are? Probably not but my job isn't too meet their needs it is to meet and hopefully exceed their expectations.

Manufacturers of course need to make money and the way they do is by constantly trying to innovate and improve their products so that they remain popular and to maximise their profits. Photography in general is a dying past time, mirrorless and the tech that it brings has helped stem the tide of apathy a little. The only way photography survives is if it has new users to replace those that die off. The next big change will of course be the death of the dedicated camera and no doubt there will be people that complain then as well.

If you are happy with the results you get from film, great use that and don't winge and complain about those who want more.

If you are happy with the results you get from your DSLR, great use that and don't complain about others who want more.

There isn't too many people that switched to mirrorless who decided to go back to DSLR's. I certainly wouldn't go back to using what now seems like archaic tech.

The world moves on you should too.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Whatever gave you that idea? :) That would just give very uneven exposure. The method was to take the lens cap off and then put it back on again.
But you're right, all improvements to technology are incremental and we don't actually "need" them.
:exit:
Click to expand...
I was thinking of an exposure of quite a few seconds, and heads pressed against metal holders so they didn’t move. Lens caps are a modern abomination!!! ;)
 
Childrens' portraits were sometimes taken post mortem...
 
f/2.8 said:
...
Could I shoot a wedding only on film, yes. Could I shoot a wedding using DSLR's, yes and did for many years before switching. Could I deliver what I do now using film or DSLR's, no absolutely not. Could I meet the expectations clients have now shooting film, absolutely not! Could I shoot a wedding with DSLR's and meet the expectations clients have now, no I probably couldn't. Do clients need what there expectations are? Probably not but my job isn't too meet their needs it is to meet and hopefully exceed their expectations.

.....
Click to expand...
What are people's expectations these days vs. days of yore?

Genuine question - I don't have the foggiest about wedding photography!
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Pixel-based autofocus is a major improvement, while EVF is still somewhat of a s***-show. And they are even skimping on larger LCDs to at least catch up with mobile phones.

So a mixture of tech progress and $-making drive
Click to expand...

I suppose it all depends on the tech you are using and how stuck in your ways you are. Some OVF's were clearly rubbish ditto early evf's. These days I'd take an average evf over the best OVF ever fitted to any SLR or DSLR because of the advantages they bring and because despite being a ocd suffering geek I'm not completely stuck in my ways when it comes to vf's.

Given the choice of a clear full frame showing evf allowing me to see things no unaided optical system can and a speck afflicted dim ovf with bugs walking about in it (I had that more than once) which doesn't even show me the whole frame I'll take the evf every single time :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I suppose it all depends on the tech you are using and how stuck in your ways you are. Some OVF's were clearly rubbish ditto early evf's. These days I'd take an average evf over the best OVF ever fitted to any SLR or DSLR because of the advantages they bring and because despite being a ocd suffering geek I'm not completely stuck in my ways when it comes to vf's.

Given the choice of a clear full frame showing evf allowing me to see things no unaided optical system can and a speck afflicted dim ovf with bugs walking about in it (I had that more than once) which doesn't even show me the whole frame I'll take the evf every single time :D
Click to expand...
I dislike the EVF flicker when panning. Not seen one yet that doesn’t do that (not tried a R1 yet, but R7, R6, R5 and R3 all do it). That is not being stuck in my ways or being an old git, I simply dislike it.
 
GeeJay57 said:
I dislike the EVF flicker when panning. Not seen one yet that doesn’t do that (not tried a R1 yet, but R7, R6, R5 and R3 all do it). That is not being stuck in my ways or being an old git, I simply dislike it.
Click to expand...

I don't see that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top