The relative merits of DSLRs and mirrorless

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

At NikonGear, it is clear that the vast majority - it seems to me all the participants - consider the relative distribution and sales of Nikon and Canon DSLR systems when system camera sales and use is discussed.

This is much different from other fora.

A foremost example is dpreview.com, where one gets the impression that in particular Sony is about to overtake and dominate the whole camera market. Mirrorless cameras are touted as "the future" by people who seem to disregard or forget about the reality that mirrorless constructions who have electronic viewfinders and a sensor that is constantly on and exposed invariably means vastly increased battery power consumption and a correspondingly vastly reduced number of possible shots pr. mAh of battery power. Yes, one can carry a large number of batteries, and one can also carry a power bank, but the fact still remains - mirrorless consume much more energy and reduces the number of shots relative to a DSLR. Those who insist that mirrorless is the future and that optical viewfinders are obsolete and on their way out generally have no other answer than the statement that "most people will be fine with the capacity of mirrorless."

However, such statements do not change reality. The fact is still that for any given capacity of a battery you can get many more shots from a system with an optical viewfinder than what is possible from a mirrorless system.

Nor does anyone at dpreview or similar fora seem to consider the fact that mirrorless cameras with EVFs will have even more severe problems in low temperatures, since battery capacity will be even more drastically reduced - and how does an electronic viewfinder perform in -20, -30 and -40C?

That is why I ask:

- How and why is it that at dpreview.com and also other photo related discussion fora one gets the impression that mirrorless is the only thing and that DSLR syatems and glass viewfinders with no power consumption and sensors that are blacked out and protected between shots will soon be history?

- How representative are those who give that abovementioned impression?

- Who, and how many, are those who are ready to dump functional, reliable and capable systems from Nikon, Canon and Pentax in favor of the Sony system which seems to be mysteriously popular with hobbyist photographers?

- What are, in your opinion, the relative merits of DSLRs and mirrorless, and what is the future of these systems?

[Airy]

Having used Olympus E-M5 and E-M1 for some time, I can only say that I am patiently waiting for the first Nikon FX mirrorless to hit the market.
I currently use a Df on a near-daily basis (it is always with me, just in case). Df will not be replaced by a new type, and production will not last forever. I do not consider lugging around a D850 or similar with the same enthusiasm. So when my Df passes out, I'll probably get another one, second hand is need be, or jump to mirrorless.

Since I am mainly using MF lenses anyway, I do not drain batteries with AF and VR. Df battery life is more than enough for me now. Mirrorless might be just OK. It will not be worse than the E-M1.

I'll sure appreciate a mirrorless with EVF and better focussing aids than the hopeless focus confirmation we have on D800, Df & al. The Noct and the Summicron-R definitely deserve something better to become even more usable. This is especially true with focus-shift-prone lenses, including the Noct.

My "love story" with the Df is not especially due to the OVF, you see...

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Dpreview's business model is to promote sales of new camera equipment; their site has traditionally been littered with camera evaluations along links to buy the said items.

From such sites' point of view the best customer of all is one who sells all their old gear and purchases a different system with new bodies, lenses and accessories. Because new gear costs more than old gear is compensated for, these switchers will have fewer items initially than they had for the old system so they are ripe targets for further purchases even to just chase what they had for the old system. SO it's basically to keep people running without moving anywhere.

Personally I think switching to a different system is usually a very bad move financially and if your current system offers a full selection of products that solve your practical photography need, it doesn't make any sense to switch. You end up spending a ton of money and get nowhere in terms of functionality. I also think that purchase of unnecessary items is immoral as it taxes the natural resources and environment of our planet. (I am well aware that I am guilty of this myself.)

Of course if you have legitimate problems with your equipment then it may be a different matter. But I've never had such a problem with Nikon equipment that I'd want to switch, with the exception of the 2004-6 era when there was no full frame digital option and the D70 viewfinder really annoyed me a lot. Then I looked into Canon 5D and 1D series cameras but decided not to go for it.

For mirrorless it has its own advantages such as viewfinder and autofocus for video, special tricks like eye autofocus for stills, compact bodies and compact wide angles (though I prefer large bodies but some it is an advantage to have a small body), silent operation when mechanical shutter is not used etc. This is all great but from my point of view the optical viewfinder is important and I have no plans of purchasing a camera without one. Fuji makes mirrorless with OVF/EVF hybrid and I recall Canon also patenting an optical viewfinder solution for mirrorless. These would be of interest to me to obtain the silent operation with viewfinder that I could use for some events. Other than those situations where silence is required, I prefer DSLRs.

Although mirrorless provide more focusing aids for manual focus, I cannot manual focus using the plain EVF display without use of magnification (in which case the overall composition is no longer visible). I mostly use autofocus when photographing hand held and manual focus for tripod based carefully controlled work. So for me viewfinder-based focusing aids are not typically used. I find the D850 live view to have the necessary tools for manual or automatic focusing for precision applications (on mostly static scenes) using a tripod. For hand held photography and moving subjects I use the viewfinder and autofocus.

For EVFs I just can't put up with the flickering, flashing, rolling jaggies and especially when panning the image basically goes all blurry and some cameras show a step like update instead of continuous, smooth movement. The slight delay gives me nausea and the artifacts reduce my ability to concentrate on the subject's subtle emotional cues.  I have a strong dislike for the EVF and I don't think this will change in the future. I want to be happy when shooting and be able to concentrate on the subject and the large optical viewfinder of FX DSLRs gives me that.

I believe the camera review website industry has a strong motivation to push people to buy the new and make people unhappy with the old, because they live off advertisement clicks. They do not care about what is best for the photographer.

Actual sales are a different matter than what the camera review industry would like to promote. In Jan/Feb of this year DSLRs increased their market share relative to mirrorless compared to the same time of the previous year.

[longzoom]

True, indeed, Ilkka. The perfect harmony balance between usage of mirror or mirrorless gears will be set by needs of each person. No propaganda of any kind/source will work for me, or anyone else, I am afraid, who perfectly knows what he/she needs. Batteries will be improved dramatically, ASAP, it is not that serious factor. And Nikon doesn't need to follow the Sony's way - Sony's cameras are great technically, but terrible ergonomically, too small and unusable without grips - it is my own opinion, of course. Yes, it is simply great to have a choice - everyone for its own!  THX!  LZ

[Les Olson]

Mirrorless cameras do have one or two genuine advantages for hobby photographers.  If exposure is a mystery to you, the ability to see the effect of exposure compensation before you take the picture is very useful.  And, according to Thom Hogan, Sony's AF, which does a phase-detect then a contrast-detect, gives better results than Nikon's AF if you can't be bothered learning how the system works and setting it up carefully. 

Mirrorless cameras also have advantages for the manufacturers, because they have a lot fewer parts, which reduces inventory and assembly costs, and they require many fewer calibration and adjustment steps, which means lower staff training costs.  Why consumers would care about lower manufacturing costs when they are not reflected in lower retail prices I have no idea.  Plus, adding things like IBIS and pixel shift removes at least some of that advantage. 

I recently saw an advertisement for Google's new laptop, and part of the pitch was "If you think computers should be more like phones".  Which to me sounds as silly as "If you think computers should be more like blueberry muffins", but to young people it makes perfect sense.  For them, the more like a phone another device is, the better, and mirrorless cameras are much more like phones. 

The answer to the question of why sites like dpreview give the impression that mirrorless in general and Sony in particular are carrying all before them is that Sony has aggressively and very effectively cultivated relationships with those sites. To what extent that involves actual payments, and to what extent it is "only" trips to Japan and privileged access to new equipment we do not know because when dpreview publishes what poses as an article but is in fact a Sony advertisement (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9600049212/sony-vision-over-profit) they do not tell us. 

[Hugh_3170]

Sites such as DPreview should be treated with extreme caution - for the reasons already cited in this thread, least one comes away with the wrong impressions.  FWIW Canon and Nikon appear to be holding their own quite well against the onslaught of Sony.

I use Olympus OMD E-M1s and various Nikons.  I use the Olympuses when I am on foot and need a lighter outfit on account of a damaged neck and shoulder and the Nikons when I have four wheels and don't need to carry heavier cameras by myself.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I can not speak to why other forums are the way they are, but I certainly appreciate this one.

My position is that camera equipment format is driven by compromise. Large format lost to roll film when roll film became “good enough”. When I say “lost” I mean it lost its position as the dominant format for a particular use. LF is still around, but never again to the extent it once was.

2” film lost to 35mm when film quality became good enough. The benefits of small and portable alway play a part in decisions.

110 film lost. The results were not good enough and the reduction of form factor was not a big deal.

Digital won. It was not always obvious to many during the transition. Years ago I wrote this same argument about why digital would kill film when it got “good enough”. Many many people said it would not happen because film was so much better and had “infinite” resolution.

Cell phone cams killed point and shoot cameras. Convenience and sharing outweighed the benefits of a dedicated camera.

With mirrorless we see the same story. The question is whether the potential benefits outweigh the loss of something we are very used to and attached to.

I think it will win. People with DSLR’s are using the back screen to focus in live view. They are using it in video. Sure it is not better than through the lens, but when it becomes “good enough” then the bulk and cost and complexity of mirrors and prisms will start to fade away. This is my view. Certainly, there is the 110 example where the challenger never became “good enough”, but I don’t think we will end up that way.

Only time will tell. Remember, it is never about what “you” think. You will keep doing what you do. It is the other person, the new person, who determines the camera choices of the future. Old photographers keep on using what they are most familiar with until the switch becomes unavoidable.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

One thing that many people miss is that there is no one camera of the future. There are, and always will be, various different types of cameras designed to be optimal for different usages and preferences. Just as different photographers' needs are different so are their tools.

It's not a question of familiarity or old age, either.

[Jack Dahlgren]

One thing that many people miss is that there is no one camera of the future. There are, and always will be, various different types of cameras designed to be optimal for different usages and preferences. Just as different photographers' needs are different so are their tools.

It's not a question of familiarity or old age, either.

Ilkka,

You are correct, and I agree. Many types of cameras co-exist and many photographers use multiple types.

My argument is a general one. There are certainly exceptions. I am one who has always used cameras which are out of mainstream fashion. For example I may have shot no more than 100 DSLR images in my life using autofocus.

For that reason I’m more sensitive to the fact that there is a way of working which I don’t participate in, but is really the main usage which drives camera design. I think mirrorless has that potential to be a mode in which a large majority of camera users work. As it improves, there will be people in the optical viewfinder community who find it good enough to adopt. Some won’t, ever. But as you point out, they won’t have to.

[John Harkus]

I agree with this entirely as I voiced a similar argument about digital some years ago (although I was wrong on the timeframe) - although I'm not entirely convinced that mirrorless will be the end of the SLR, and if so hopefully I'll be too old to worry.

However, there must now exist a whole generation that hasn't used an optical finder at all. This is perhaps what makes the difference.

One can only hope that maybe optical viewfinders will achieve some mystical properties a la vinyl.

John

I can not speak to why other forums are the way they are, but I certainly appreciate this one.

My position is that camera equipment format is driven by compromise. Large format lost to roll film when roll film became “good enough”. When I say “lost” I mean it lost its position as the dominant format for a particular use. LF is still around, but never again to the extent it once was.

2” film lost to 35mm when film quality became good enough. The benefits of small and portable alway play a part in decisions.

110 film lost. The results were not good enough and the reduction of form factor was not a big deal.

Digital won. It was not always obvious to many during the transition. Years ago I wrote this same argument about why digital would kill film when it got “good enough”. Many many people said it would not happen because film was so much better and had “infinite” resolution.

Cell phone cams killed point and shoot cameras. Convenience and sharing outweighed the benefits of a dedicated camera.

With mirrorless we see the same story. The question is whether the potential benefits outweigh the loss of something we are very used to and attached to.

I think it will win. People with DSLR’s are using the back screen to focus in live view. They are using it in video. Sure it is not better than through the lens, but when it becomes “good enough” then the bulk and cost and complexity of mirrors and prisms will start to fade away. This is my view. Certainly, there is the 110 example where the challenger never became “good enough”, but I don’t think we will end up that way.

Only time will tell. Remember, it is never about what “you” think. You will keep doing what you do. It is the other person, the new person, who determines the camera choices of the future. Old photographers keep on using what they are most familiar with until the switch becomes unavoidable.

[Les Olson]

My position is that camera equipment format is driven by compromise. Large format lost to roll film when roll film became “good enough”. When I say “lost” I mean it lost its position as the dominant format for a particular use. LF is still around, but never again to the extent it once was.

I disagree.  Large format never lost, and still has not lost its position as the format you need when you need large prints with high resolution (film and digital have about the same resolution, (of the order of) 100 lp/mm, but an 8 x 10 negative can give a 24 x 30 print with 30 lp/mm, and no digital camera can do that).  What happened was not that medium format - let alone 35mm - got "good enough" for that use, but that other uses for which it was good enough - newspapers, magazines, domestic-sized prints - became the ones that mattered.  Digital displaced film for fashion and editorial photography not for any reason to do with quality but because it was so much easier to work with.  The only photographic advantage of digital is the ability to change ISO shot-to-shot, and with modern systems, over a much wider range.  Fine art photography is still largely film-based, because the advantages of digital are unimportant in that field. 

There is an alternative to mirrorless displacing SLR or vice versa: convergence. We are already seeing that with the D850, which has features previously thought of as characteristically mirrorless, and it would not, eg, be difficult to add an eye-level EVF to an SLR.

[Anthony]

While mirrorless cameras use batteries up more quickly, the comparison should take account of size and weight.

For example, the D5's battery weights 160g, while the Fuji W126s (used on a number of cameras in the range) weighs 47g.  Three of those will give close to 1,000 shots with moderately careful use, not as much as the D5 battery but plenty for most people in most circumstances.  I am happy not to carry the extra weight unless I need it.

Battery life on Fuji has never been a problem for me, even on safari or photographing sport.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

One thing that many people miss is that there is no one camera of the future. There are, and always will be, various different types of cameras designed to be optimal for different usages and preferences. Just as different photographers' needs are different so are their tools.

It's not a question of familiarity or old age, either.

Ilkka Nissilä, there you hit the nail on its very head - at least in my opinion.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I recently saw an advertisement for Google's new laptop, and part of the pitch was "If you think computers should be more like phones".  Which to me sounds as silly as "If you think computers should be more like blueberry muffins", but to young people it makes perfect sense.  For them, the more like a phone another device is, the better, and mirrorless cameras are much more like phones. 

The answer to the question of why sites like dpreview give the impression that mirrorless in general and Sony in particular are carrying all before them is that Sony has aggressively and very effectively cultivated relationships with those sites. To what extent that involves actual payments, and to what extent it is "only" trips to Japan and privileged access to new equipment we do not know because when dpreview publishes what poses as an article but is in fact a Sony advertisement (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9600049212/sony-vision-over-profit) they do not tell us.

The first paragraph above explains the sociological part of the picture.

The second paragraph of course explains the market situation well.

However, photographers who grow out of the limitations of types of equipment that resemble a smart phone will more than likely demand more. They will probably be quite a few, also among young people who discover the benefits that follow from better and more capable tools.

[Airy]

Although mirrorless provide more focusing aids for manual focus, I cannot manual focus using the plain EVF display without use of magnification (in which case the overall composition is no longer visible).

My experience with the Oly involved using canon FD lenses on an adapter. In particular, I used the 50/1.4 with great pleasure. Focussing was easy, mainly using focus peaking. Seeing the sharpness zone changing when acting on the helicoid is very helpful, and not overly distracting - less than microprisms that tend to darken the crucial central zone, anyway ! I have been using clear matte screens since my Canon T90 times (late eighties), and cannot put up with microprisms or split prisms.

For me, a Nikon FX mirrorless is no system change, but just a new life for my old F mount lenses. Meanwhile, I go on with the Df for its overall qualities. Not to forget the DK 17 M eyepiece, that I always screw onto any camera (D700, D800, now Df). Without it, MF would not be an option.