The relative merits of DSLRs and mirrorless

[jd1566]

- 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?

I think this got answered pretty much - DPREVEIW is promoting sales, and latest and greatest inspire most interest.  Also digital photography is heavily reliant on new breakthroughs, and mirrorless is one such "breakthrough".

- How representative are those who give that abovementioned impression?
Sony in particular has saturation-bombed the internet via ambassadors and Vloggers attending their launch events. There is a symbiotic relationship between Vloggers and companies spending vast amounts of marketing dollars, so I think that what all the hype around mirrorless represents is marketing dollars.. notnecessarily a global shift in photography to mirrorless. So, not very representative

- 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?
I for one am one who has gone out and gotten a mirrorless camera (Sony A7R3).  I think we'll have to wait for the storm to pass to know how many have done so, but anecdotally I see a lot of used Canon and Nikon lenses on sale on E-Bay, and prices seem to be going down.. i.e. more supply than demand.  Good time to be a DSLR shooter though.

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

I've tried 2 mirrorless systems to date - Fuji (X-E1) and Sony (A7R3). Merits are the ability to use essentially ANY lens out there. In my case I can now use a 1960's vintage Canon 50mm f0.95 and it is truly spectacular.  Not so much the Fuji but certainly with the Sony I can use full frame manual focus lenses and get the shot in focus via the very good electronic viewfinder.  The newer Sony with its better battery actually performs really well, and I get a day's worth of shooting or more before having to charge the battery.  Not nearly as good as a DSLR (Nikons mostly)so if I was travelling up a mountain for a week then I'd need a lot of batteries.  Still, for everyday use quite usable.  Autofocus with my Nikon lenses works reasonably well with some, and attrociously with others. I believe Canon lenses perform better, although I haven't tried that.  Definitely a plus as with one camera body your can mix and match lenses from different makers, picking the best in category (Nikon 70-200E and Canon 50mm f1.2 EF for example). The sensor stabilisation is defintely a plus, making older manual lenses as well as more modern lenses essentially stabilised, although not nearly as well as optically stabilised lenses. Definitely a plus for mirrorless, although it's not exclusively a mirrorless thing (Pentax K-1 anyone?!).  On the seriously negative side of the equation is the impractical size of mirrorless cameras, and the beastly size of Sony full frame lenses, that manage to be larger than Canikon equivalents! This is truly ridiculous! The bodies are uncomfortable and you must get a grip in order to.. get a grip!  I'll take the ergonomics of a D3 over a A7R3 any day. However small camera size does have its advantages when travelling, shooting where you're not really supposed to.  Silent shooting is another advantage, although Nikon's D850 also does that, although you need to use the LCD to focus.  The Sony does it using the EVF which is more intuitive. So close cigar for DSLR's on that one, but ultimately point goes to Mirrorless.
However all the advantages above aren't enough for me to want to keep the Sony, and therefore it will be going on Ebay.  I'll keep the Nikons for now, and maybe when Nikon comes out with it's own Mirrorless it will fix the shortcommings I've mentionned above.  Make no mistake though, the Sony Mirrorless cameras are quite amazing, IQ is top-notch, some really useful features. Probably by Version 4 they will have it right

[pluton]

A fair set of observations, jd.  In addition to the D800s, I stay with my Fuji XE-series camera for it's small size and unobtrusiveness. A Leica ($$$$$$) would do most, but not all, of what I do with the Fuji.

[OCD]

I've been waffling about making a post here.  Oh well, for what it's worth I really like my D5300 as a small camera, I don't think I'd want anything smaller.  And the new AF-P zooms match up real nice with it, the problem is I'm not much of a zoom guy so my main camera is a D750 and a couple primes.  I think the lack of DX primes has not helped Nikon and is a reason why so many have tested the waters with Fuji and Sony, more because of the prime lens selection (especially Fuji) than getting after a smaller camera body.  My wish list for DX would be a small 18mm f/2 and quality 35mm f/1.4.  Doesn't seem likely.  Why no DX primes?  Probably a moot point now as Nikon moves towards their own mirrorless system, but it's kind of a shame because the DX cameras are really very good.

[Hugh_3170]

The real issue here is that there is a shortage of DX wide angle primes - primes from the FX line up are still fine on DX for the longer focal lengths (albeit at maybe the expense of added weight).  So I agree with you that a modern 18mm f/2.0 DX would be a great start, followed by some more primes at even shorter focal lengths.

I've been waffling about making a post here.  Oh well, for what it's worth I really like my D5300 as a small camera, I don't think I'd want anything smaller.  And the new AF-P zooms match up real nice with it, the problem is I'm not much of a zoom guy so my main camera is a D750 and a couple primes.  I think the lack of DX primes has not helped Nikon and is a reason why so many have tested the waters with Fuji and Sony, more because of the prime lens selection (especially Fuji) than getting after a smaller camera body.  My wish list for DX would be a small 18mm f/2 and quality 35mm f/1.4.  Doesn't seem likely.  Why no DX primes?  Probably a moot point now as Nikon moves towards their own mirrorless system, but it's kind of a shame because the DX cameras are really very good.

[Les Olson]

The real issue here is that there is a shortage of DX wide angle primes - primes from the FX line up are still fine on DX for the longer focal lengths (albeit at maybe the expense of added weight).  So I agree with you that a modern 18mm f/2.0 DX would be a great start, followed by some more primes at even shorter focal lengths.

I don't think Nikon is being inattentive in not making DX wide-angle primes, I think they are saying that someone who uses primes a lot, especially wide-angle primes, is a natural FX user - and they are right.  Plenty of wide primes for FX exist, old and new, expensive and cheap, small and light or big and heavy, a D750 is lighter than a D500 and roughly the same price, and you don't need all the AF resources of the D500 to use wide primes, so why not a D750?

Sure, there is no FX camera cost-competitive with a D7500, but I think that what Nikon is telling us by not making DX wide primes is that they just don't believe that enough DX camera owners users would buy wide DX primes to justify the expense of developing and making them.  Lots of people say they are thinking about Fuji because they have the prime lenses Nikon DX lacks, but what do they buy?  They buy zooms. Thom Hogan, eg, has gone on (and on) about the lack of DX wide primes, and how that is pushing people to Fuji, but his recommended Fuji travel kit uses zooms (http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/three-small-mirrorless.html).  And his own recent kit for the NAB show was a D7500 + 10-20, 16-80 and 70-300, and as he says, with that kit "What’s an E-M1II going to do for me again?"  (http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-purge.html).  Let you use wide primes is what it is going to do - and forgetting it is not encouraging Nikon to take seriously talk about how badly they need to make DX wide primes.     

[OCD]

The idea of DX primes would be they would be smaller, lighter, and less expensive.  And in that sense provide competition with mirrorless systems.  The new AF-P zooms meet this smaller, lighter, less expensive criteria, and they are of very good quality as well.  To have to purchase a $1,500 or more FX camera to shoot a $700 28mm prime is not the best deal going for most people.  A $500 DX camera with a $300 18mm prime sounds much more palatable.  But...I think that ship has long sailed.  Having two systems has not been an easy thing for Nikon to manage.

[Akira]

You could make smaller lenses for smaller formats.  But apparently the long flange back of DSLRs seems to make it difficult to design smaller wideangles.  A good example is (although they are zooms) the huge difference in size between Olympus 7-14mm/f4.0 for 4/3 and Panasonic 7-14mm/f4.0 zoom for m4/3.

Another problem is 1.5x crop factor.  You have to make lenses of shorter focal length to achieve the equivalent angle of view by retaining the same flange back.  A 20mm equivalent for the DX format is 13.3mm, which requires the more extreme retrofocus design which should result in a bigger lens.

Yes, I would have to admit that the DX 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 is almost the same in size as the FX 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5, and the DX can offer a wider angle of view.  So, there is possibility, but I would still doubt if you could make it any "smaller".

[OCD]

You could make smaller lenses for smaller formats.  But apparently the long flange back of DSLRs seems to make it difficult to design smaller wideangles.  A good example is (although they are zooms) the huge difference in size between Olympus 7-14mm/f4.0 for 4/3 and Panasonic 7-14mm/f4.0 zoom for m4/3.

Another problem is 1.5x crop factor.  You have to make lenses of shorter focal length to achieve the equivalent angle of view by retaining the same flange back.  A 20mm equivalent for the DX format is 13.3mm, which requires the more extreme retrofocus design which should result in a bigger lens.

Yes, I would have to admit that the DX 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 is almost the same in size as the FX 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5, and the DX can offer a wider angle of view.  So, there is possibility, but I would still doubt if you could make it any "smaller".

Great explanation. Thank you.

[Øivind Tøien]

You could make smaller lenses for smaller formats.  But apparently the long flange back of DSLRs seems to make it difficult to design smaller wideangles.  A good example is (although they are zooms) the huge difference in size between Olympus 7-14mm/f4.0 for 4/3 and Panasonic 7-14mm/f4.0 zoom for m4/3.

Not familiar with the flange distance of M4/3, but there is no way they could design a 7mm lens without a telecentric design (unless the rear of the lens is extending way inward to the shutter curtain). I think someone here pointed out earlier that among prime lenses there is a very small range of focal lengths that can benefit in simplicity by not needing to be telecentric (from memory 20mm or so to 50mm?). Also can someone remind me, isn't zoom lenses telecentric by their nature?  Telephoto lenses can actually be shorter with a longer register/flange distance as part of their "length" resides in the body.

Design priorities are likely as important for lens sizes. It seems that the trend in full frame DSLR lenses lately, especially the professional ones, has been priority of optical quality over size, although there are some nice exceptions like the 300PF + the efforts to make the long exotics lighter without compromising optical quality.

[Roland Vink]

You could make smaller lenses for smaller formats.  But apparently the long flange back of DSLRs seems to make it difficult to design smaller wideangles.  A good example is (although they are zooms) the huge difference in size between Olympus 7-14mm/f4.0 for 4/3 and Panasonic 7-14mm/f4.0 zoom for m4/3.

Another problem is 1.5x crop factor.  You have to make lenses of shorter focal length to achieve the equivalent angle of view by retaining the same flange back.  A 20mm equivalent for the DX format is 13.3mm, which requires the more extreme retrofocus design which should result in a bigger lens.

Yes, I would have to admit that the DX 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 is almost the same in size as the FX 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5, and the DX can offer a wider angle of view.  So, there is possibility, but I would still doubt if you could make it any "smaller".

Compare the various DX 18-55 zooms with the old AIS 18/3.5. The zooms are f/3.5 at 18mm, so they have the same focal length and aperture, but covering a smaller image circle, and far smaller size (52mm filter compared to 72mm). If the 18-55 were a prime instead and the aperture increased to f/2.8 I am sure they could make a DX 18/2.8 which is just as small and probably shorter.

Would a DX 18/2.8 would be fast enough or wide enough to satisfy DX shooters? I think going significantly wider would cause the lens to grow in size for the reasons Akira mentioned. I guess a DX 16/2.8 (24m FX equivalent) would be possible in a reasonably compact 62mm filter - by comparison the AFS 16-80/2.8-4 has 72mm filter, but zooms are usually much larger than primes of similar focal length.

Nikon DX lenses have the same back-focus distance as FX lenses. In theory the back-focus could be shorter since the reflex mirror can be proportionally smaller than FX format. That would permit wide lenses (primes and zooms) that are more compact. For some reason Nikon chose not to take this path. Early DX cameras were based on existing film cameras and still used a full sized reflex mirror. Perhaps Nikon also wanted their DX lenses to be fully compatible with film cameras and FX digital, although I don't see much benefit in this. Canon's AF-S lenses for their APS-C cameras have shorter back focus distance than regular "full frame" EF lenses, although they don't seem to take full advantage of this feature, the back-focus is hardly shorter than regular lenses, and lenses equivalent to Nikon DX lenses are about the same size.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Nikon DX lenses have the same back-focus distance as FX lenses. In theory the back-focus could be shorter since the reflex mirror can be proportionally smaller than FX format. That would permit wide lenses (primes and zooms) that are more compact. For some reason Nikon chose not to take this path. Early DX cameras were based on existing film cameras and still used a full sized reflex mirror. Perhaps Nikon also wanted their DX lenses to be fully compatible with film cameras and FX digital, although I don't see much benefit in this. Canon's AF-S lenses for their APS-C cameras have shorter back focus distance than regular "full frame" EF lenses, although they don't seem to take full advantage of this feature, the back-focus is hardly shorter than regular lenses, and lenses equivalent to Nikon DX lenses are about the same size.

I think the reasoning behind Dx keeping f mount instead of going with an adapter took into account a few things.
First, changing mount for digital would be a difficult thing due to the large number of existing lenses. At that time, there was not the same feeling about digital as there is now. I recall many arguments with people who thought digital would never replace film. Volume of digital SLRs was also low. Throwing a new mount into that mix would have been crazy.

The first dx lenses were somewhat smaller and cheaper as they did not need as large of an image circle. I don’t know what the case is now, but it is my recollection from that time.

I think at that time, Nikon was also quite worried that dx was the largest practical format. I think they found over time that they could manufacture larger sensors, build faster electronics to process larger files and also charge higher prices.

[Les Olson]

Just to change the direction of this discussion back towards the original question (Why the appeal of mirrorless?), Thom Hogan has a revealing article on his site today, about a Sony freebie he went on (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-kando-20.html).  It tells a great deal about how Sony creates the impression that they and their cameras are, as Thom puts it, "Fun, fascinating, fervent, festive, and fruitful. [...] It makes you want to create more photos, and more interesting photographs. It makes you want to stretch yourself and your gear to its limits." 

How is the trick done?  A lot is known about how it is done, because the pharmaceutical industry does it exactly the same way and that has been studied intensively for years.  Most people think the key is obvious: the money - a lot of money, in this case.  In fact, it isn't the money - although generosity is important.  The key is in how you get to go: "To get into Kando, you have to submit an essay as to why you should be there, and point to a body of work. I did, and I was accepted." Of course, the actual selection criteria are quite different from what they tell the "applicants": "I noticed most of the 150 that were accepted all had very visible and different kinds of Internet presence".  They didn't want photographers, they wanted "opinion leaders".   

This is straight out of the doctors-and-drug-companies playbook: there you are, working away in [name of city] and no one ever tells you what great work you are doing, and along comes Big Pharma/Sony and they think (or pretend to think) your research/photography is really good. Often, they also tell you they really want your input about their exciting, cutting-edge developments, and that makes sense, because you are an exciting, cutting-edge person.  Of course you get there and you feel creative and interesting and want to stretch yourself.  And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that. 


 



   

[OCD]

Just to change the direction of this discussion back towards the original question (Why the appeal of mirrorless?), Thom Hogan has a revealing article on his site today, about a Sony freebie he went on (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-kando-20.html).  It tells a great deal about how Sony creates the impression that they and their cameras are, as Thom puts it, "Fun, fascinating, fervent, festive, and fruitful. [...] It makes you want to create more photos, and more interesting photographs. It makes you want to stretch yourself and your gear to its limits." 

How is the trick done?  A lot is known about how it is done, because the pharmaceutical industry does it exactly the same way and that has been studied intensively for years.  Most people think the key is obvious: the money - a lot of money, in this case.  In fact, it isn't the money - although generosity is important.  The key is in how you get to go: "To get into Kando, you have to submit an essay as to why you should be there, and point to a body of work. I did, and I was accepted." Of course, the actual selection criteria are quite different from what they tell the "applicants": "I noticed most of the 150 that were accepted all had very visible and different kinds of Internet presence".  They didn't want photographers, they wanted "opinion leaders".   

This is straight out of the doctors-and-drug-companies playbook: there you are, working away in [name of city] and no one ever tells you what great work you are doing, and along comes Big Pharma/Sony and they think (or pretend to think) your research/photography is really good. Often, they also tell you they really want your input about their exciting, cutting-edge developments, and that makes sense, because you are an exciting, cutting-edge person.  Of course you get there and you feel creative and interesting and want to stretch yourself.  And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that. 


 



 

+ 1

(Les Olson, you really nailed this one)

[Kenneth Rich]

"And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that." 
 And so you buy one or the other or both, because they each have relative merits.

[Les Olson]

"And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that." 
 And so you buy one or the other or both, because they each have relative merits.

But is the decision based on the relative merits or on the positive feelings?  Doctors who take gifts from drug companies have always claimed that it was an insult to say that the gifts had any effect on their judgment. Well, they do, every doctor, every time.  The fact is that we, as humans, are highly susceptible to emotional influences on decision-making. 

The thrust of the original post was that the positive vibe surrounding mirrorless and the negative vibe surrounding dSLRs is not explained by their relative merits, objectively considered.  It is explained by the emotional impact of Sony's marketing.  There is nothing wrong with making choices based on emotional responses, but it is a problem when the emotional responses are manipulated by the people who benefit from your choices.  If each person makes their choices based on their emotional responses, that is fine.  It is not fine when a doctor makes choices about your treatment based on their feelings about drug companies.  It is also not fine, though much less important, to have to buy your camera equipment in a market dominated by marketing aimed at other people's emotions, instead of relative merits, objectively considered. 
 
And guess who else was in Monterey recently, and came back with a review of a Sony camera?  DPReview (https://www.dpreview.com/videos/6290579546/dpreview-tv-sony-rx10-iv-review).  Funnily enough, they don't mention that Sony paid for the trip (although the Youtube video does, in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it kind of way).