Why hasn't mirroless taken over?

[Dave Canon]

It is reasonable to replace full frame with Full Frame.
And APS with APS.
The reasons are obvious.

This not what I did. I have a good FF DSLR Canon 5D4 but needed much lighter kit. After some research, it was clear that many FF ML were as heavy as DSLR. I thus had to compromise and accept a APS-C ML Sony A6600. However the performance was not that much less. They all had plenty of pixels and the dynamic range of the ML was 13.4 instead of 13.6 for my DSLR. Both cameras have fast focus. The FF DSLR is a little better for low light but with software like Topaz no need to worry. Both cameras have batteries which give me at least 500 shots.

I would not have changed to ML for no reason and I know several photographers who have changed to ML for the same reason as I did; to reduce weight. I have still kept the DSLR and use it for studio work.

Dave

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This not what I did. I have a good FF DSLR Canon 5D4 but needed much lighter kit. After some research, it was clear that many FF ML were as heavy as DSLR. I thus had to compromise and accept a APS-C ML Sony A6600. However the performance was not that much less. They all had plenty of pixels and the dynamic range of the ML was 13.4 instead of 13.6 for my DSLR. Both cameras have fast focus. The FF DSLR is a little better for low light but with software like Topaz no need to worry. Both cameras have batteries which give me at least 500 shots.

I would not have changed to ML for no reason and I know several photographers who have changed to ML for the same reason as I did; to reduce weight. I have still kept the DSLR and use it for studio work.

Dave

I would agree with you from a user's point of view.
But recently manufactures have replaced like with like.
At the early days of digital that was not the case as FF sensors were not available. And when they did become so, they were extremely expensive.

 

[rob-nikon]

Ahh ok, I don’t know Canon that well and video even less so if video’s a requirement then I guess mirrorless is a better option.

Personally I like the look of the Canon mirrorless and if it wasn’t for the lack of and expense of native lenses I could have considered moving from Sony. That being said Sony knocked it out of the park with the 70-200mm f2.8 GM 2 so maybe not.

The cost difference of canons RF lenses compared to Sonys latest version lenses isn’t that great compared to their previous versions. The Sony 24-70 mk2 is £2099, Nikons Z version £2125, Canons RF version £2199. The mk2 Sony 70-200 f2.8 is the same price as the canon RF version and Nikons Z version at £2599. I think the latest camera kit is just getting more expensive.

Sony of course have the edge at present having started their mirrorless lens range a lot earlier than Nikon and canon and have third party support, but as time goes others will increase their lens ranges and likely get third party support so that get less important. Sony still have some missing in their range. Most notably the 300mm f2.8 or a fast long zoom lens. Nikon seem to be releasing some great lenses and at good prices too. The 400mm f4.5 looks like it could be a lens many would love to have especially from a price and weight point.

 

[snerkler]

The cost difference of canons RF lenses compared to Sonys latest version lenses isn’t that great compared to their previous versions. The Sony 24-70 mk2 is £2099, Nikons Z version £2125, Canons RF version £2199. The mk2 Sony 70-200 f2.8 is the same price as the canon RF version and Nikons Z version at £2599. I think the latest camera kit is just getting more expensive.

Sony of course have the edge at present having started their mirrorless lens range a lot earlier than Nikon and canon and have third party support, but as time goes others will increase their lens ranges and likely get third party support so that get less important. Sony still have some missing in their range. Most notably the 300mm f2.8 or a fast long zoom lens. Nikon seem to be releasing some great lenses and at good prices too. The 400mm f4.5 looks like it could be a lens many would love to have especially from a price and weight point.

There are some lenses for sure that are similarly priced, but when I looked when committing to a system Canon was going to be much more expensive for the lenses I wanted. Since then the gap has narrowed somewhat but last time I looked Canon would still be more.

Nikon are bringing out some very interesting lenses, Sony need to keep their eye on the ball.

 

[Tysonator]

The main reason for me going mirrorless is the eye / object detect AF, a complete game changer over DSLR !

If you like doing landscape, product, still life photography then DSLR's are worth using. As going mirrorless will add nothing to your end IQ

 

[snerkler]

The main reason for me going mirrorless is the eye / object detect AF, a complete game changer over DSLR !

If you like doing landscape, product, still life photography then DSLR's are worth using. As going mirrorless will add nothing to your end IQ

Silent shooting with no rolling shutter effect, and blackout free shooting have been more of a game changer for me

 

[Brazo]

Eye af and edge to edge focusing points are awesome when your kid is running around the frame!

 

[Tysonator]

Eye af and edge to edge focusing points are awesome when your kid is running around the frame!

Or flying birds of prey !

 

[redsnappa]

Mirrorless has taken over, it's just that most people on forums such as this one are burying their heads in the sand to avoid the horrible truth.
The vast majority of people who take photo do so with the mirrorless camera that is incorporated in their smart phones. The convenience of the 'phone camera and the fact that it far exceeds the image quality requirement by the most users means it has totally obliterated the market for those bigger bulkier dedicated cameras. Did anyone not notice the huge decline in sales in stand alone dedicated cameras or are camera phone the wrong type of mirrorless?

 

[woof woof]

Mirrorless has taken over, it's just that most people on forums such as this one are burying their heads in the sand to avoid the horrible truth.
The vast majority of people who take photo do so with the mirrorless camera that is incorporated in their smart phones. The convenience of the 'phone camera and the fact that it far exceeds the image quality requirement by the most users means it has totally obliterated the market for those bigger bulkier dedicated cameras. Did anyone not notice the huge decline in sales in stand alone dedicated cameras or are camera phone the wrong type of mirrorless?

There are bloggers who announce that phones are great and that's all they're going to use but I've not seen anything yet that stands close viewing compared to Micro Four Thirds let alone anything else.

Mrs WW and her mates are constantly sending each other phone pictures and they can look lovely and very lovely even on phone and even tablet screens but when I ask for a copy and look at them on my pc the issues are there to be seen and IMO MFT is better.

This may be because "we" care more and the vast majority of people just can't see any difference but then lots of people watch TV in the wrong mode and don't seem to notice so I don't know if the opinion of lots of people really matters all that much to me.

Also, I just don't like squinting at a hardly visible in good light little oblong screen held at arms length whilst jabbing at it with one hand and hoping it doesn't fall from the other. Phone are IMO just hateful things as photographic tools for handheld photography and I like nothing about using them for photography, nothing. The only good point I suppose is that most people have one with them.

 

[redsnappa]

Mrs WW and her mates are constantly sending each other phone pictures and they can look lovely and very lovely even on phone and even tablet screens but when I ask for a copy and look at them on my pc the issues are there to be seen and IMO MFT is better.

They may not be as good as MFT but the image quality of phones far and away exceeds quality desired by the targeted users. If you have to pixel peep to see the difference in image quality between MFT & a phone you are showing how good the phone is.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If you have to pixel peep to see the difference in image quality between MFT & a phone you are showing how good the phone is.

I agree.

A forum like this is, if you like, a "coalition of the willing" (although, one hopes, not so violent). Some members tend to lose sight of our being a small minority, even among those who use "proper" cameras.

Personally, I much prefer to use a camera simply because five and a half decades have trained me into the process and a phone is just too different to my way of working. On the other hand, if that's all that's available, that's what I use.

By the way, tablets are good too!

 

[woof woof]

They may not be as good as MFT but the image quality of phones far and away exceeds quality desired by the targeted users. If you have to pixel peep to see the difference in image quality between MFT & a phone you are showing how good the phone is.

IMO you don't even have to pixel peep you just need to look a little closer than looking at a whole picture on a phone or tablet allows. I suppose that's still fine for many people and the kind of people who can watch a tv in the wrong mode and not notice but I assume people reading this thread not only care about capturing and creating an image but also have some level of quality in mind. What peoples quality level is is up to them to decide. Clearly for some on here MFT is too small a format yet it has a sensor many times the size of the one in a phone.

 

[snerkler]

IMO you don't even have to pixel peep you just need to look a little closer than looking at a whole picture on a phone or tablet allows. I suppose that's still fine for many people and the kind of people who can watch a tv in the wrong mode and not notice but I assume people reading this thread not only care about capturing and creating an image but also have some level of quality in mind. What peoples quality level is is up to them to decide. Clearly for some on here MFT is too small a format yet it has a sensor many times the size of the one in a phone.

I agree, you don’t need to pixel peep to see the difference. Even my wife can see it, however the difference is she doesn’t care as long as it’s a “nice” photo.

The issue for me is the statement that “phone cameras are comparable to ‘proper’ cameras (meaning of course large sensor cameras)”. They’re not, it’s just some people don’t care about the difference

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

it’s just some the vast majority of people don’t care about the difference

I've corrected your minor error of fact, there.

Being obsessed about sharpness, colour pallet or detail in a picture is not something that affects the many millions (or possibly billions) who use phones, tablets, compact cameras or even dSLRs for their own purposes. Nor are they wrong to ignore such things.

Whenever you find yourself thinking that "everyone's out of step except" me, you should stop and wonder why...

 

[woof woof]

I've corrected your minor error of fact, there.

Being obsessed about sharpness, colour pallet or detail in a picture is not something that affects the many millions (or possibly billions) who use phones, tablets, compact cameras or even dSLRs for their own purposes. Nor are they wrong to ignore such things.

Whenever you find yourself thinking that "everyone's out of step except" me, you should stop and wonder why...

What a strange view.

I assume you've seen those experiments when everyone is in on a falsehood except the subject and the subject goes along with the clearly wrong group think because they don't want to stand out? I'm sure your parents said something like the following to you when you and a friend did something stupid...

"If he jumped off a cliff would you?"

I really don't care that many people like phone photography as if it's good enough for them that's just dandy The only way it affects me is that phone photography affects photography equipment maker sales and therefore could limit what's available for me to buy. I know from experience that many people never look at their pictures on anything but a phone or tablet, their pictures never make it to a larger screen and just live in portable devises. This must explain why the quality is acceptable as even the people that would see the difference in IQ to a dedicated larger sensor camera don't get the chance to.

If I wasn't interested in photography as a whole and that includes the kit I might be happy with a phone... but then there are the handling and use issues... so I know I wouldn't be. If new cameras disappeared from sale and were replaced by phones as they are now I'd just use my old kit or anything I could find with a VF or maybe even.... go back to film.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

What a strange view.

I'm known for it.

Other strange views I hold include (in no particular order)...

• People obsessed with sharpness in images are generally missing the point.
• Every image is a success if it serves its purpose.
• All opinions are wrong but some opinions are dafter than others.
• There is no such thing as a "good" camera nor a "bad" camera.
• Snobbery of any kind is always bad.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Mirrorless has taken over, it's just that most people on forums such as this one are burying their heads in the sand to avoid the horrible truth.
The vast majority of people who take photo do so with the mirrorless camera that is incorporated in their smart phones. The convenience of the 'phone camera and the fact that it far exceeds the image quality requirement by the most users means it has totally obliterated the market for those bigger bulkier dedicated cameras. Did anyone not notice the huge decline in sales in stand alone dedicated cameras or are camera phone the wrong type of mirrorless?

Interesting graph. What strikes me is the percentage of red (Cameras with interchangeable lenses) which actually stands up quite well. My deduction of that graph is that the mass decline is mostly around cheap digital fixed lens holiday cameras and budget snappers, which have little or no advantage to the phone you're already carrying. Conversely the more serious side of photography still has a market.

 

[woof woof]

I'm known for it.

Other strange views I hold include (in no particular order)...

• People obsessed with sharpness in images are generally missing the point.
• Every image is a success if it serves its purpose.
• All opinions are wrong but some opinions are dafter than others.
• There is no such thing as a "good" camera nor a "bad" camera.
• Snobbery of any kind is always bad.

I'd rather be known for having defendable views rather than for just having strange ones but each to their own.

Following the heard is sometimes I suppose a good idea but often it just isn't and making your own mind up is often much better.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I've corrected your minor error of fact, there.

Being obsessed about sharpness, colour pallet or detail in a picture is not something that affects the many millions (or possibly billions) who use phones, tablets, compact cameras or even dSLRs for their own purposes. Nor are they wrong to ignore such things.

Whenever you find yourself thinking that "everyone's out of step except" me, you should stop and wonder why...

View attachment 362378

I don't think it's a case of obsession, it's more down to horses for courses. If you use a DSLR, and photos matter to you, then naturally you want sharpness, colour pallet etc etc otherwise you wouldn't have invested the time and effort in the gear you have. Simply put, it's part of your passion, part of what you enjoy doing.
The vast majority take a photo so they can look at it again or send it to other people, and it's good enough. It's not going on the wall. So the phone does the job.

 

[woof woof]

I don't think it's a case of obsession, it's more down to horses for courses. If you use a DSLR, and photos matter to you, then naturally you want sharpness, colour pallet etc etc otherwise you wouldn't have invested the time and effort in the gear you have. Simply put, it's part of your passion, part of what you enjoy doing.
The vast majority take a photo so they can look at it again or send it to other people, and it's good enough. It's not going on the wall. So the phone does the job.

Horses for courses.

I suppose a blurry picture of Bigfoot riding Shergar might be very interesting but an OOF picture of your niece getting married isn't going to make the album.

 

[alfbranch]

The Canon EOS M at 10: a half-baked warning from mirrorless camera history

Opinion: Canon must avoid repeating the EOS M's mistakes

www.techradar.com

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'd rather be known for having defendable views rather than for just having strange ones but each to their own.

Indeed, and I will defend to the death your right to hold your (somewhat) strange views

Following the heard is sometimes I suppose a good idea

...but what is it you heard? Do share it with us.

making your own mind up is often much better.

I agree, and I think you should go ahead and do that soon!

 

[Crotal Bell]

Horses for courses.

I suppose a blurry picture of Bigfoot riding Shergar might be very interesting but an OOF picture of your niece getting married isn't going to make the album.

Exactly that. Phones are brilliant for grabbing casual memories and quirky moments.

If you are attending an event and snapping a few keep/share pics for FB and a folder on your laptop, they do a great job. The composition, colours, bokeh etc etc are mostly immaterial, and you have a few options in the smartphone menus if you want to dabble, and you're not likely to edit the results, maybe the odd bit of cropping.

If your Niece asks you to take the official photos of her wedding, it's probably because you are passionate about photography and have much more advanced equipment and you have better photographic ability.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Phones are brilliant for grabbing casual memories and quirky moments.

Many of them are also remarkably effective image making tools.

I claim no skill in using them. However, I've seen many, many interesting images taken with phones and there are probably more people using phones for serious work now than are using dedicated cameras.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Phones mostly produce better results than 110 film cameras which served a similar purpose for most of their owners.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Many of them are also remarkably effective image making tools.

I claim no skill in using them. However, I've seen many, many interesting images taken with phones and there are probably more people using phones for serious work now than are using dedicated cameras.

In my own experience, the smartphone rejuvenated my interest in taking pictures, and it's limitations led me to buy dedicated cameras for more serious work.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Phones mostly produce better results than 110 film cameras which served a similar purpose for most of their owners.

But so did parchment and charcoal.

 

[redsnappa]

Both film and parch\charcoal require considerable skill, knowledge and experience to get consistently good image quality where the technology in camera phones makes it super easy for the unskilled to create good quality photos

 

[bovey9]

On a recent holiday I only went with my iPhone 11. The photographs we printed at 7x5 look great and for most people more than enough. I am always amazed how far camera phones have come. If course there are things they can not do but for most people they work great. One thing on the mirrorless vs DSLR debate is that the mirrorless is in my opinion a more complicate camera to use. I came fro a 1Dx and now shoot Sony A7iv and A9. Yes I get better results and take photographs I would not have tried before with the DSLR but I do work harder to get them.

 

[snerkler]

On a recent holiday I only went with my iPhone 11. The photographs we printed at 7x5 look great and for most people more than enough. I am always amazed how far camera phones have come. If course there are things they can not do but for most people they work great. One thing on the mirrorless vs DSLR debate is that the mirrorless is in my opinion a more complicate camera to use. I came fro a 1Dx and now shoot Sony A7iv and A9. Yes I get better results and take photographs I would not have tried before with the DSLR but I do work harder to get them.

The next iPhone is reported to be 48mp, I'll be interested to see how much (if any at normal viewing size) it improves image quality

 

[woof woof]

On a recent holiday I only went with my iPhone 11. The photographs we printed at 7x5 look great and for most people more than enough. I am always amazed how far camera phones have come. If course there are things they can not do but for most people they work great. One thing on the mirrorless vs DSLR debate is that the mirrorless is in my opinion a more complicate camera to use. I came fro a 1Dx and now shoot Sony A7iv and A9. Yes I get better results and take photographs I would not have tried before with the DSLR but I do work harder to get them.

I'm a bit baffled by this as I don't see that at all. All these cameras have the usual modes, Auto, Aperture, Shutter, Manual and so on so you can if you want use them exactly like a DSLR. I just don't see the difference.

Mirrorless cameras are probably more customisable as you can set what the buttons and dials do and you can have lots of goodies like in view exposure and DoF and the like but all these things can be completely ignored and you can just turn the dial to Aperture Priority and just get on with it like it's 1952 if that's what you want to do.

 

[snerkler]

I'm a bit baffled by this as I don't see that at all. All these cameras have the usual modes, Auto, Aperture, Shutter, Manual and so on so you can if you want use them exactly like a DSLR. I just don't see the difference.

Mirrorless cameras are probably more customisable as you can set what the buttons and dials do and you can have lots of goodies like in view exposure and DoF and the like but all these things can be completely ignored and you can just turn the dial to Aperture Priority and just get on with it like it's 1952 if that's what you want to do.

I'm with you on this, in fact I would say mirrorless are easier due to their wider AF spread, WYSIWYG viewfinder and for a lot, more 'automated' AF modes. I would hazard a guess that for most folk it's more a case of familiarity rather than how complex the camera is.

 

[woof woof]

I'm with you on this, in fact I would say mirrorless are easier due to their wider AF spread, WYSIWYG viewfinder and for a lot, more 'automated' AF modes. I would hazard a guess that for most folk it's more a case of familiarity rather than how complex the camera is.

I remember years ago when BMW had their idrive thingy. The boss of Alfa commentated that most of his customers couldn't use the in car entertainment system to full effect, the point being that things were getting a bit over complicated for some people.

I do agree that mirrorless cameras can potentially be more complicated than DSLR's simply because they have more features but you can ignore the vast majority of these features. I sometimes use mine with manual lenses and hyperfocal. You can't get much simpler than turning the camera on, pointing it at something and pressing the button

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I would hazard a guess that for most folk it's more a case of familiarity rather than how complex the camera is.

That's the great advantage for phones, other than for those of us who've been using cameras for umpty decades and think in camera terms.

dSLRs and film SLRs will continue to be used for decades or even longer but they will be a decreasing resource, My view is that the mirrorless camera has largely displaced the dSLR as the normal "step up" from a phone already, for things the phone cannot do or for which it is simply inconvenient.

 

[fujilover]

Anyway getting away from this falling out about phones, I recently bought a 1DX just for a mess about camera and i still think these old pro dslr`s were the pinnacle of camera build quality and toughness.

 

[woof woof]

Anyway getting away from this falling out about phones, I recently bought a 1DX just for a mess about camera and i still think these old pro dslr`s were the pinnacle of camera build quality and toughness.

Will it still be working in 50/60 years time though?

How build quality used to be done...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Will it still be working in 50/60 years time though?

Yep! Nothing beats the Trusty F...

 

[fujilover]

Will it still be working in 50/60 years time though?

How build quality used to be done...

Sadly the solder in modern electronics has to be free of this and that substance due to rules. As far as i know our modern electronics wont last the long haul

 

[woof woof]

Sadly the solder in modern electronics has to be free of this and that substance due to rules. As far as i know our modern electronics wont last the long haul

When I worked in the repair dept of Systime Computers I started to cough and I didn't stop for decades. Even now I'd say I'm still suffering from occupational asthma dies to exposure to Rosin.