The relative merits of DSLRs and mirrorless

[Jack Dahlgren]

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.

Les,

I’m getting my large format equipment ready for sale this weekend. Let me know if you are interested!

One thing I’ve noticed is that the majority of my equipment was made by companies which no longer produce LF equipment - Ebony Cameras (closed a couple years back), Nikon (no more LF lenses), Docter Optics (formed out of the death of Zeiss Jena, then died), Graflex, Kodak, Ilex, Riteway...

LF never died, but there is very low volume and no major companies are planning their future on it.

Medium format film is similar. Gone are the many species and flavors.

When I say “lost” I mean is no longer the majority format, not that it ceases to exist. LF was once the dominant form. Roll film took over in the second half of the last century and digital owns the beginning of this one. I can still do tintype or wetplate if I like, but it is a DIY thing now.

[Michael Erlewine]

Having had a lot of mirrorless cameras (A7s, A7R2, A7r3, X1D, GFX) I can’t help but wonder who said mirrorless cameras have to have lousy batteries? Who said they have to be small? Why can’t there be a larger mirrorless camera that can take heavy lenses easier. I have used my last two cameras, the Nikon D810 and D850 like mirrorless cameras, not ever using the OVF on either camera except to see if it works.

To me it should be about EVF cameras with or without mirrors. I don’t use mirrors, so I don’t need them. I use LiveView like an EVF, plain and simple. So, I’m looking for a better and better LiveView camera, with loads of battery endurance... things like that.

My Sony A7R2 had to have 6 batteries to function for a real outing. That's a joke and Sony should have known better.

[pluton]

1. An EVF, properly implemented, makes possible viewing and focusing in light that is too dim for the standard OVF to be useful.
2. I would be pleased to have a mirrorless camera that accepts my existing Nikon mount lenses and supports their auto-diaphragm functionality.
3. The availability of a silent, fully electronic shutter is another useful mirrorless feature, although some electronic shutters create banding patterns on the subject when it is illuminated by pulsed artificial light.

[Airy]

I agree with 1 and 2. Especially 2 is important for me.

Concerning 2, auto-diaphragm is very important, but with a mirrorless camera, I'd tend to use closed diaphragm focussing and metering, at least at relatively wide apertures, to overcome focus shift when it is critical. The picture in the EVF might be degraded because of the increased gain needed, as is the case with LiveView, but the user can choose.

Currently, when using the Df together with the "unlinked" Summicron R, I am facing the same alternative (i.e. focussing wide open or stopped down), but I cannot increase the gain of the OVF.

Concerning 3, no mirror does not impose electronic shutter, but means less noise & vibration for sure (see Leica film cameras)

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

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.

The above is true if there is no change of mount, but is it really likely that a Nikon FX mirrorless system will have the F mount or be compatible with the old manual lenses?

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

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

One can argue that future batteries may have so much greater capacity that there is no problem with an electronic viewfinder.

However, in addition to the EVF's and mirrorless constructions' inevitably higher power consumption there is the even more serious problem of cold weather. An optical viewfinder does function without problems in -20, -30, -40C or even below, whereas an electronic viewfinder ceases to function in low temperatures. It is a fact that such low temperatures regularly occur in many areas of the world. If we envisage a total supplantation of optical viewfinders by electronic ones like many of the most ardent mirrorless enthusiasts seem to do, such a scenario would imply a major step back regarding shooting in cold environments.

Any future photographic system will have to be at least as reliable under all circumstances, temperatures and climate conditions as today's systems, since photographers take their pictures in all kinds of environments and temperatures - and therefore future technical developments need to increase and not reduce our photographic possibilities.

[Anthony]

My point was that a mirrorless camera could have a D5 size battery, and it would therefore have dramatically greater capacity.  Yes, still more drain than a DSLR, but not a problem for the vast majority of shooting situations.

Not many photographers shoot in temperatures of -20 or below, so for most photographers the ability to shoot in such circumstances is not relevant.  I have shot mirrorless in temperatures of -10 with no problem, but I can imagine that some photographers' demands would not be met in very low temperatures.  For most, these are not really an issue; if a mirrorless camera is better for normal use, the fact that it would be less good at these very low temperatures would be unlikely to affect the purchasing decision.  Already for most situations the battery issue is not important.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Well the battery consumption depends on how much you use the EVF/LV and if you do a lot of scouting using the EVF/LV and take few images, the battery won't last all that many shots. If you shoot a lot of bursts and don't do a lot of viewing then a lot of shots can be captured with just one battery charge. Whether the EVF battery consumption is a problem or not depends on how the photographer works and in what conditions. I was traveling with a small group of  photographers and the Fuji user had four batteries, a multi-battery charger and was swapping quite often. It did seem like it was an annoyance that sometimes could result in missed shots. However, if the camera is made larger then a larger capacity battery can be used. But then one may find the advantages of a small camera reduced as well.

Personally I remember a time when I could shoot a week of an active photography trip on one battery (with a DSLR) and I also remember that mobile phones only needed to be charged once a week. Today I have to charge my mobile phone every night even though it is in an enclosure with extra battery. These things are not progress IMO. Manufacturers should focus on reducing battery consumption so that I could go back to traveling without a host of batteries and chargers for various devices. I think the burden of the electronic devices and the internet also is severe on our planet's environment. People talk about clean energy and make promises but then burn coal in practice to keep the grid powered. This may result in a spectacular crash of out society not to mention the wildlife etc.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Not many photographers shoot in temperatures of -20 or below, so for most photographers the ability to shoot in such circumstances is not relevant.  I have shot mirrorless in temperatures of -10 with no problem, but I can imagine that some photographers' demands would not be met in very low temperatures.  For most, these are not really an issue; if a mirrorless camera is better for normal use, the fact that it would be less good at these very low temperatures would be unlikely to affect the purchasing decision.  Already for most situations the battery issue is not important.

It needs to be said that the above statement is, unfortunately, seriously mistaken.

In many areas of the world, temperatures of -20 or below are common. In large parts of Northern America, Alaska and Canada, in much of Europe and particularly in Northern Europe, as well as in mountain areas all over the world such temperatures are commonly confronting photographers. In nearly all of inland Scandinavia - that is Norway, Sweden and Finland - a temperature of -20C is normal during most of the winter and lower temperatures are by no means uncommon. In the inner areas of Norway, Finland and Sweden there may sometimes be -40C and below. This often happens in the northern areas. Photography is performed in all these countries, and is also an increasingly popular activity.

In Russia and Central Asia we know that large areas of the Taiga and Tundra areas are characterized by very low winter temperatures, and we are talking about areas where -20C is considered mild for the winter. The same is true for Mongolia and northern China. While I do not know about photography in these countries, tourism is as we know everywhere and the climate is known to be very cold during winter.

I assure you that many photographers do shoot in such temperatures as mentioned, and that the need for photo equipment to tolerate many degrees below zero (Celsius) is for real. If there is any doubt about that, please perform an internet search after for example "Cold weather photography," "Photographying in the cold," "Arctic photography," "Canadian Arctic photography," and "Winter photography." You will see that many photographers, both professionals and amateurs, take pictures in these areas, and these photographers seem to be growing in number. Electronic viewfinders (as of 2018) drain batteries very fast during use in cold weather. If the temperature is very low, the electronic viewfinder function will soon become so slow that it is no longer functional and finally it stops working. If mirrorless cameras are to compete with optical viewfinders in all types of weather, they have to function equally well in all types of weather. If they cannot do that, they cannot replace SLR cameras with optical viewfinders.

There is no question that a photographic system which is to be a serious one must be able to cope with low temperatures. The equipment simply has to be able to withstand very cold weather and to function flawlessly under such conditions.

[Frank Fremerey]

I can only recommend to try before you buy.

For me the X100T hybrid OVF / EVF is a very good solution for situations requiring the smallest possible package. I bring three batteries for her but never needed more than two per day.

For professional jobs, ergonomics is the No1 criterium for me and my Nikon setup delivers just that plus speed.

Apart from my Nikons I used the OM Digital system. Not bad, but not for me. Sony ergonomics runs against everything I feel to be practical.

[Les Olson]

LF never died, but there is very low volume and no major companies are planning their future on it.

Medium format film is similar. Gone are the many species and flavors.

When I say “lost” I mean is no longer the majority format, not that it ceases to exist. LF was once the dominant form. Roll film took over in the second half of the last century and digital owns the beginning of this one. I can still do tintype or wetplate if I like, but it is a DIY thing now.

All true, but there are two questions: which users will decide the "majority" format, and on what criteria, and whether large manufacturers will continue to make products for people with minority interests. 

Nikon has always centred its research and development on the top-of-the-line camera for the serious user, and the average consumer got - and gets - more than they needed.  That is not the way things are designed in the modern consumer digital and electronics world.  In that world, things are designed for the average consumer, and serious users get less than they need.  There is a long and dreary catalogue, from VHS vs Betamax to Word vs Wordperfect to MP3 vs practically anything.

In the case of mirrorless cameras, that means we get eye-detect AF and the ability to see the effect of exposure compensation in the viewfinder, but poor battery life and ergonomics.  As we are seeing even in this thread, people who are interested in ergonomics or battery life or low temperature use are simply brushed aside as not "most photographers".  If they are lucky, those people may just have to buy from niche manufacturers, at higher prices. If they are unlucky, Big Camera may perceive those niche manufacturers as a threat, in the same way as Big Music perceives attempts to sell alternatives to MP3 as a threat. 

[Jack Dahlgren]

All true, but there are two questions: which users will decide the "majority" format, and on what criteria, and whether large manufacturers will continue to make products for people with minority interests. 

Nikon has always centred its research and development on the top-of-the-line camera for the serious user, and the average consumer got - and gets - more than they needed.  That is not the way things are designed in the modern consumer digital and electronics world.  In that world, things are designed for the average consumer, and serious users get less than they need.  There is a long and dreary catalogue, from VHS vs Betamax to Word vs Wordperfect to MP3 vs practically anything.

In the case of mirrorless cameras, that means we get eye-detect AF and the ability to see the effect of exposure compensation in the viewfinder, but poor battery life and ergonomics.  As we are seeing even in this thread, people who are interested in ergonomics or battery life or low temperature use are simply brushed aside as not "most photographers".  If they are lucky, those people may just have to buy from niche manufacturers, at higher prices. If they are unlucky, Big Camera may perceive those niche manufacturers as a threat, in the same way as Big Music perceives attempts to sell alternatives to MP3 as a threat.

If we look at history - and I think it is a bad idea not to - the dominant camera makers in each era were not the one who drove change to the new formats with the exception of Kodak perhaps, but they sold cameras to sell film. Fuji is a bit similar to Kodak as well.

Instead it was Leica, Canon, Nikon etc. who opened up the 35mm market. It was Apple and Samsung who destroyed the point and shoot segment.

Being the best in a certain class does not mean that advantage will carry on. In some cases it locks you into behaviors that result in your eventual failure. This is especially true in technology, and I’d argue that image capture these days is depending more and more on computing and software (not to diminish the lens one bit - but certainly distortion can be computed out of images post capture).

I’ve worked in a couple of companies which have made it through those sorts of shifts, so I know Nikon could make a successful transition to the next generation of image capture, but I just want to point out that often it is the best in class which is left behind in a generational shift.

Those who need cameras with optical viewfinders or which operate without batteries will certainly be able to find them. I have a few 35mm bodies in the closet that don’t use batteries at all. It is not the limitations of the new format which you need to think about. It is the capabilities of the new format which drive change.

Please note that I don’t think the death of the optical viewfinder is coming any day now. I may never see an electronic viewfinder which meets my needs. But I’ll die someday or lose my eyesight, and the camera on my shelf will be as archaic to my grandchildren as my grandfather’s were to me.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Those who need cameras with optical viewfinders or which operate without batteries will certainly be able to find them. I have a few 35mm bodies in the closet that don’t use batteries at all. It is not the limitations of the new format which you need to think about. It is the capabilities of the new format which drive change.

I am the opinion that change is welcome when the change improves upon or comes in addition to what is presently available. That is a rule of thumb.

However, when a typical mirrorless camera with an energy consuming electronic viewfinder gives you a mere third or a fourth of the number of exposures that can be had from a similar battery in a camera equipped with an optical viewfinder, and moreover when the mirrorless camera is far less capable in low temperatures, it would be a major backward step if such mirrorless cameras were to completely supplant (D)SLRs.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I am the opinion that change is welcome when the change improves upon or comes in addition to what is presently available. That is a rule of thumb.

However, when a typical mirrorless camera with an energy consuming electronic viewfinder gives you a mere third or a fourth of the number of exposures that can be had from a similar battery in a camera equipped with an optical viewfinder, and moreover when the mirrorless camera is far less capable in low temperatures, it would be a major backward step if such mirrorless cameras were to completely supplant (D)SLRs.

Let me clarify a couple of the points I’m trying to make.

First, I don’t claim one technology will completely supplant another overnight. History shows us that “inferior” devices (with certain nascent advantages and uses) grow in the shadow of the dominant technology for a long time. The forest matures and grows slowly - all the technology there becomes perfected and no further growth is possible, but the undergrowth grows faster and eventually the forest is a different place.

Second, the squirrels who live in the old growth forest think it is perfect because they have evolved with it. The birds in the undergrowth love the undergrowth. They think squirrels are boring because they can’t fly. Of course, some squirrels can fly! And they may venture into the undergrowth and find new opportunities there. Some may choose to live in that new world of chaos and growth.

The main point is that change is driven by the advantages and new capabilities of a new technology more than it is limited by its inferiority in the capabilities of existing technology. It doesn’t need to be better at what old technology is good at. It needs to be better at what old technology is not good at (or can’t do). No 35mm camera can beat the resolution of 8x10 film nor the movements and control available with that format, However, 35mm format outsells 8x10 by millions of units.

[Airy]

The above is true if there is no change of mount, but is it really likely that a Nikon FX mirrorless system will have the F mount or be compatible with the old manual lenses?

I reckon that the new Nikon mirrorless FF camera will come with a new mount and an adapter for F mount. Otherwise I would not understand the world anymore.
I'll sure buy whatever 50mm Summilux-like stuff they will develop for the new mount, just one, I promise myself. The old MF lenses will continue to be used.