In this article, we explore DSLR and mirrorless cameras and take a look at pros and cons of both in detail. When compared to mirrorless cameras, DSLR cameras by design have some inherent flaws and limitations. Part of it has to do with the fact that SLR cameras were initially developed for film. When digital evolved, it was treated just like film and was housed in the same mechanical body. Aside from the circuitry required for a digital sensor and other electronics, new digital film media and the back LCD, the rest of the SLR components pretty much stayed the same. The same mechanical mirror, the same pentaprism / optical viewfinder, the same phase detection system for autofocus operation.
While new technological advances eventually led to extending of features of these cameras (in-camera editing, HDR, GPS, WiFi, etc), DSLRs continued to stay bulky for a few reasons. First, the mirror inside DSLR cameras had to be the same in size as the digital sensor, taking up plenty of space. Second, the pentaprism that converts vertical rays to horizontal in the viewfinder also had to match the size of the mirror, making the top portion of DSLRs bulky. Lastly, manufacturers wanted to keep existing lenses compatible with digital cameras, so that the transition from film to digital was not too costly or too limiting for the consumer. This meant that manufacturers also had to keep the “flange distance” (the distance between the camera mount and the film / sensor plane) the same between the two formats. Although smaller APS-C / DX sensors and lenses seemed like a great way to reduce the bulk of DSLR systems, the flange distance / compatibility concerns left them fairly large and heavy physically. 35mm eventually came back with modern full-frame digital sensors, so the mirror and pentaprism sizes again went back to what they were in film days. On one hand, keeping the flange distance the same allowed for maximum compatibility when mounting lenses between film, APS-C and full-frame DSLRs, without the need to re-design and re-market lenses for each format. On the other hand, DSLRs simply could not go beyond their minimum size requirements and the presence of the mirror is what continues to make them so much more complex to build and support.
1) DSLR Camera Limitations
Due to the mirror dependency of DSLRs for “through the lens” (TTL) viewing, they have the following limitations:
- Size and Bulk: the reflex system needs space for both the mirror and the prism, which means that DSLRs will always have a wider camera body and a protruding top. It also means that the viewfinder must be fixed in the same spot on every DSLR, in-line with the optical axis and digital sensor – basically, there is no other place to put it. As a result, most DSLRs have somewhat similar exterior looks.
- Weight: large size and bulk also translates to more weight. While most entry-level DSLRs have plastic bodies and internal components to make them lighter, the minimum height and depth issue to house the mirror + pentaprism / pentamirror means lots of wasted space that needs to be covered. In addition, it would be unwise to cover such a large area with a very thin layer of plastic just to make it appear smaller / lighter – the underlying idea of a DSLR is ruggedness, even on a basic body. On top of that, DSLR lenses are typically large and heavy (especially those with a full image circle that were created for 35mm film / full-frame), so a super light camera body would result in balance issues. In essence, it is the larger physical size of DSLR systems that directly affects the weight.
- Complex Mirror and Shutter Design: every actuation requires the mirror to move up and down to let the light pass through directly onto the sensor. This alone creates a number of issues:
- Mirror Slap: the most amount of noise you hear on SLR cameras comes from the mirror slapping up and down (the shutter is much quieter in comparison). This mirror slap results in loud noise and camera shake. Although manufacturers have been coming up with creative ways to reduce noise by slowing down the mirror movement (Nikon’s “Quiet” mode for example), it is still quite loud. Camera shake can also become an issue when shooting at long focal lengths and slow shutter speeds. Once again, DSLR manufacturers had to come up with features like “Mirror Lock-Up” and “Exposure Delay” to allow mirror to be lifted, then exposure taken after a set delay – all to reduce vibrations.
- Movement of Air: as the mirror flips up and down, it moves plenty of air inside the camera chamber. And with air, it also moves dust and other debris around, which eventually ends up on the camera sensor. Some people argue that their DSLR cameras are better suited for changing lenses than mirrorless cameras, because there is a mirror between the sensor and the mount. There might be some truth to that. However, what happens with that dust after the mirror moves inside the chamber? All that dust will obviously circulate inside the chamber. In my experience shooting with a number of different mirrorless cameras, I found them to be actually less prone to dust than any of my DSLRs.
- Frame Speed Limitation: while the modern mirror and shutter mechanisms are very impressive, they are limited by the physical speed at which the mirror flips up and down. When the Nikon D4 fires at 11 frames per second, the mirror literally goes up and down 11 times within each second, with the shutter opening and closing in between! It has to be a perfect synchronization of both the mirror and the shutter in order for it all to work. Take a look at the below video that shows this in slow motion (skip to 0:39):
Now imagine this process at 15-20 times per second – that’s practically physically impossible to achieve.
- Expensive to Build and Support: the mirror mechanism is very complex and consists of dozens of different parts. Because of that, it is expensive to build and provide technical support if anything goes wrong. Disassembling a DSLR and replacing internal components can be very time consuming.
- No Live Preview: when looking through an optical viewfinder, it is impossible to see what the image is actually going to look like. You have to look at the camera meter (which can be fooled in some situations) and adjust the exposure accordingly.
- Secondary Mirror and Phase Detection Accuracy: you might already know that all DSLR cameras with phase detection autofocus system (more on this below) require a secondary mirror. I wrote about this in detail in my “how phase detection AF works” article. In short, part of the light that reaches the mirror ends up on the smaller secondary mirror that sits at a different angle than the primary mirror. The purpose of the secondary mirror is to pass the incoming light to phase detection sensors that are located on the bottom of the chamber. The problem with the secondary mirror, is that it has to be positioned at a perfect angle and distance for phase detection to work accurately. If there is even a slight deviation, it will result in missed focus. And even worse, the phase detection sensors and the secondary mirror have to stay perfectly parallel to each other. If they don’t, some autofocus points might be accurate, while others will constantly miss focus.
- Phase Detection and Lens Calibration Issues: the problem with the traditional DSLR phase detection system not only lies with the secondary mirror alignment issues, but also requires lenses to be properly calibrated. It becomes a two way game – precise focus requires perfect angle and distance of the secondary mirror to the phase detection sensors (as explained above), and requires a properly calibrated lens to the body. If you had autofocus accuracy problems with your lenses in the past, you might have had experience sending your gear to the manufacturer. Very often, support techs will ask the lens in question to be sent together with the camera body. If you wondered why before, now you have the answer – there are basically two places where things could potentially go wrong. If the technician adjusts your lens to their standard camera environment and your camera is slightly off, your issues might get even worse after such tuning. That’s why it is best to calibrate both the camera and the lens to resolve those discrepancies.
- Price: although manufacturers have gotten much more efficient over the years in terms of DSLR production, assembling the mirror mechanism is no easy task. Lots of moving components mean high precision assembly systems, the need for lubrication in areas where metal components rub against each other, etc. In turn, this all results in increased manufacturing costs (although DSLR manufacturers have gotten very efficient in this regard). And it does not stop there – if anything goes wrong with the mirror mechanism, the manufacturer must repair or even potentially replace it, which is a very labor-intensive task.
2) Mirrorless Camera Advantages
With the rise of cameras without a mirror (hence the name “mirrorless”), most manufacturers have already realized that traditional DSLR systems are not going to be the driving force of camera sales in the future. It makes sense from the cost standpoint alone, but if we really look at the current innovation, where are we at with DSLRs? With each iteration of DSLRs, it seems like we are getting closer and closer to hit the wall of innovation. Autofocus performance and accuracy have already pretty much hit the wall. Processors are fast enough to crank HD videos at 60p. Just to keep the word out and sales going, camera manufacturers have been resorting to just re-branding the same camera under a new model name. What else IS there to add? GPS? WiFi? Instant Photo Sharing? More in-camera editing? Those are all great bells and whistles, but are they innovations that will truly drive future sales? I don’t think so.
Mirrorless cameras open up huge opportunities for innovation in the future and solve many of the problems of traditional DSLRs. Let’s go through each point above and discuss additional benefits of mirrorless cameras:
- Smaller Size / Bulk and Lighter Weight: removing the mirror and the pentaprism frees up a lot of space. This means that mirrorless cameras can be designed to be smaller, less bulky and lighter compared to DSLRs. With a shorter flange distance, the physical size of both the camera and the lens is reduced. This is especially true for APS-C size sensors (full-frame is tougher to address, as discussed further down in the article). No more wasted space, no need for extra ruggedness to give a feel of a bigger camera. Mirrorless cameras can be made much lighter than DSLRs.
The rise of smartphones as compact cameras has taught us a very important lesson – convenience, small size and light weight can potentially overpower quality. The point and shoot sales are significantly down, because most people find their smartphones to be “good enough” for those snapshot moments. All smartphone manufacturers are currently pressing hard on camera features, because they want people to think that they are not just getting a phone, but also a great camera in a single compact package. And judging from the sales figures so far, it is clearly working – more and more people are embracing smartphones and leaving their point and shoot cameras behind. Simply put, smaller size and lighter weight in electronics win in today’s economy. We can observe the same trend in many other gadgets – thinner and lighter TVs, tablets instead of laptops, etc.
Hence, people will naturally go after lighter and more compact, especially if the quality is not compromised.
- No Mirror Mechanism: no more mirror flipping up and down means a lot of good things:
- Less Noise: no more mirror slap, just the click of the shutter is all you hear from the camera.
- Less Camera Shake: unlike the mirror in a DSLR, the shutter by itself does not produce a lot of vibrations, resulting in less camera shake.
- No Movement of Air: since there is nothing constantly moving inside the camera chamber, dust is less of an issue (at least in my experience).
- Easier to Clean: and if dust does end up on the sensor, cleaning mirrorless cameras is easier than DSLRs. You do not need a fully charged battery to lock up the mirror – the sensor is exposed once you dismount the lens. In addition, most mirrorless cameras do not have an opening under the mirror to house a phase detection sensor and other components, so there is very little chance for dust to circulate after the chamber + sensor are fully cleaned.
- Very Fast FPS Speed: having no mirror means that the capture rate (fps) does not have to be limited by the mirror speed. This means that mirrorless cameras could potentially capture images at much faster frame rates than 10-12 FPS we see today, with much less noise.
- Cheaper to Build and Support: less moving parts translate to lower cost of manufacturing and support for the manufacturer.
- Live Preview: with mirrorless, you can get a live preview of what you are about to capture – basically “what you see is what you get”. If you messed up White Balance, Saturation or Contrast, you will see it in live preview – whether in the EVF (see below) or the LCD.
- No Phase Detection / Secondary Mirror Alignment Issues: now that many of the modern mirrorless cameras are shipping with hybrid autofocus systems that utilize both phase and contrast detection autofocus, you do not have to worry about the alignment of phase detection and secondary mirror. On a number of new generation mirrorless cameras, the phase detection sensors are located on the actual sensor, which means that phase detection will never have to be calibrated for distance, since it sits on the same plane as the sensor that captures the image.
- Price: producing mirrorless cameras is much cheaper than producing DSLRs. As of today, most mirrorless camera manufacturers charge heavy premiums for their camera systems, because their overall costs are high. While the actual manufacturing costs are lower than DSLRs, companies have to spend plenty of R&D money on improving autofocus performance and other technologies like EVF. Plus, since mirrorless cameras are relatively new, companies have to increase their marketing budgets to educate people. Overtime, however, prices of mirrorless cameras will drop to lower levels than even entry-level DSLRs.
- Electronic Viewfinder: now here comes the biggest strength of mirrorless cameras and the present + future innovation with it. Without a doubt, an EVF has huge advantages over OVF. While the current implementation of EVF might not be as robust and responsive as it should be (see below), it is just a matter of time before manufacturers fix that. Let’s go over some of the key benefits of EVF over OVF:
- Information Overlay: with OVF, you never get to see more than some basic grids. There is some static information presented in the viewfinder, but it is always fixed and cannot be easily changed. With EVF, you can get any information you want displayed right inside the viewfinder – from live exposure data to histograms. Different warnings could be added, such as a warning for a potentially blurry shot.
- Live Preview: the same live preview on the LCD can be shown inside the EVF.
- Image Review: another key feature that you will never get in an OVF is image review. How cool would it be to see the image that you have just captured right inside the viewfinder? With OVF, you are forced to look at the LCD screen, which is a big pain in daylight conditions. People end up buying specialized loupes just to be able to see their LCD screen in daylight! With EVF, you never have to worry about this, since you could use the viewfinder for reviewing images instead.
- Focus Peaking: if you don’t know what focus peaking is, check out this video on Youtube:
Basically, you can nail focus when performing manual focus without having to rely on your eyes. The area that is in focus gets painted with an overlay color of your choice and you can stop exactly where you want it to be. You would never be able to do this with an OVF in a DSLR.
- No More Viewfinder Coverage Issues: with OVF, you typically get something like 95% viewfinder coverage, especially on lower-end DSLR models. This basically means that what you see in the viewfinder is about 5% smaller than what the camera will capture. With EVF, you no longer have this problem, because it will always be 100% viewfinder coverage, since what you see in the EVF is what the sensor will capture.
- Much Brighter Display: if the light conditions are poor, you cannot really see much through an OVF. Focusing with OVF in low light is also difficult, because you cannot really tell if the subject is in focus until you take the picture. With EVF, brightness levels can be “normalized”, so that you can see everything as if it was daylight. Some noise might be present, but it is still way better than trying to guess when looking through an OVF.
- Digital Zoom: this one is by far my most favorite feature! If you have used a Live View mode on your DSLR before, you know how helpful zooming in can be. With most modern DSLRs, you can zoom in to 100% and really nail focus. Well, with mirrorless cameras, this feature can be built right into the viewfinder! So imagine manually focusing with a lens, then zooming in to 100% right inside the viewfinder before you take the picture. A number of mirrorless cameras are already capable of doing this. It goes without saying that an OVF would never be able to zoom like that.
- Face / Eye Tracking: now we are moving to the coolest part of the EVF technology. Because the EVF shows what actually happens on the sensor, additional technologies for data analysis can be utilized to do very cool things, like face and even eye tracking! I am sure you have seen face tracking on point and shoot cameras, but if you take it a step further, you could have the camera automatically focus on the nearest eye of the person that you are photographing. How cool is that? Sony and a number of other manufacturers are already doing this very efficiently on their cameras!
- Potentially unlimited focus points: as you already know, most DSLR cameras have a limited number of focus points that are distributed mostly around the center of the frame. While it works out in most situations, what do you do if you need to move the focus point to an extreme border of the frame? The only option is to focus and recompose, but that might not be always desirable, since you are also shifting the plane of focus. In addition, anything away from the center focus point is typically inaccurate and could result in “focus hunting”, where the camera struggles with AF acquisition and goes back and forth continuously. With mirrorless cameras and phase detection sensors placed directly on the imaging sensor, this limitation can be lifted. Contrast-detection is already possible anywhere in the imaging sensor, while on-sensor phase detection will eventually get to the point where focus points will be distributed all over the sensor.
- Subject Tracking and other Future Data Analysis: if things like face and eye tracking are possible with mirrorless cameras, you can only imagine what camera manufacturers will be able to do in the future. Imaging having a complex tracking system that intelligently combines sensor data with autofocus and uses it to track a given object, or subject in the frame. Even the top of the line DSLR cameras today have challenges with full subject tracking. If you have tried photographing birds in flight with a DSLR, tracking can get challenging, especially when the bird moves out of the focus point area, or when the light conditions are less than ideal. If data is analyzed on a pixel level and there is no real autofocus area to concentrate on, subject tracking could potentially get super advanced with mirrorless cameras.
- Eye damage: when looking through a viewfinder, one has to be extremely careful about photographing the sun, especially with long focal length lenses. With EVF, the image is projected through the sensor and there is no harm to your eyes.
3) Mirrorless Camera Limitations
We’ve gone over the many advantages of mirrorless cameras over DSLRs. Now let’s talk about some of their current limitations:
- EVF Lag: some of the current EVF implementations are not very responsive, resulting in considerable lag. While this is certainly a nuisance compared to OVF at the moment, it is a matter of time before that lag is eliminated. The latest EVFs are already much better than what they used to be before. But as EVF technologies evolve, the lag issue will be resolved completely.
- Continuous Autofocus / Subject Tracking: while contrast detect has already reached very impressive levels on mirrorless cameras, they are still very weak at continuous autofocus performance and subject tracking. This makes them pretty much unusable for wildlife and sports photography at the moment. However, with the rise of hybrid autofocus systems and their continuous development, we will soon start seeing mirrorless cameras with much better continuous autofocus capabilities. One of the reasons why mirrorless cameras have been slow in this department, is because most mirrorless systems are small and not well-suited to handle large telephoto lenses. So manufacturers have not been putting much of their R&D efforts into this specific area. Again, it is a matter of time until this is implemented on mirrorless cameras.
- Battery Life: another big disadvantage of mirrorless cameras at the moment. Providing power to LCD and EVF continuously takes a toll on the battery life, which is why most mirrorless cameras are rated at about 300 shots per battery charge. DSLRs are much more power efficient in comparison, typically in 800+ shot range per charge. While it is not a huge problem for typical camera use, it could be an issue for someone that travels and has very little access to power. Still, I believe that the battery issue is also something that will significantly improve in the future. Batteries will be more powerful and power-hungry LCD screens will be replaced with OLED and other much more efficient technologies.
- Red Dot Patterns: due to the very short flange distance, most mirrorless cameras suffer from a “red dot pattern” issue, which becomes clearly visible when shot with the sun in the frame at small apertures. Basically, light rays bounce back and forth between the sensor and the rear lens element, creating grid patterns of red (and sometimes other colors) in images. Unfortunately, there is no way around this limitation on all mirrorless cameras with a short flange distance, as discussed here.
- Strong EVF Contrast: many EVFs designed today have very strong, “boosted” contrast, similar to what we see on our TVs. As a result, you see a lot of blacks and whites, but very little gray shades (which help to understand how much dynamic range can be captured). While one could look at the histogram overlay in EVF, it is still a nuisance. Manufacturers will have to find ways to make EVFs display images more naturally.
As you can see, the list is rather short and I expect it to get even shorter within the next few years. I believe that all of the above issues are addressable and they will get better with each iteration of mirrorless cameras.
In summary, I would like to say that DSLRs simply have no way to compete with mirrorless in the future. I am not saying that everyone will be switching to smaller and lighter mirrorless cameras soon – no, we are still far from that point. However, it simply does not make sense for manufacturers like Nikon and Canon to continue investing into making DSLRs better, when the technology advantage is clearly with mirrorless. Below is what I believe what Nikon and Canon should do in the near future.
4) Nikon’s Mirrorless Future
Currently, Nikon has three different formats and two mounts:
- CX – Nikon CX mirrorless mount, cameras with 1″ sensors.
- DX – Nikon F mount, APS-C sensors.
- FX – Nikon F mount, 35mm full-frame sensors.
When everyone was going mirrorless, Nikon ended up creating a new mirrorless mount – CX with a small 1″ sensor. While the imaging and autofocus technology of Nikon 1 cameras is good and the overall system is fairly compact, the biggest issue is the small sensor size. With a 1″ sensor (which is much smaller than APS-C) as shown below, the Nikon 1 cameras simply cannot compete with APS-C in image quality, bokeh and dynamic range, just like APS-C cannot compete with full-frame, or full-frame cannot compete with medium format. Simply put, Nikon has a sensor size disadvantage with its CX / Nikon 1 system.
So what is the logical way for Nikon to move into mirrorless? Essentially, Nikon has a couple of choices for DX and FX:
4.1) DX
- Create a different mirrorless mount for APS-C size sensors: this would essentially kill DX. A while ago when I posted the “why DX has no future” article, I received a number of angry comments from some readers. Well, I still believe that DX has no future in a big DSLR box. To be able to compete with the current APS-C mirrorless market, Nikon needs to create a new mount with a shorter flange distance. This will obviously be very expensive for the company and will take a while to catch up with good lenses. Instead of two mounts, Nikon will have to concentrate on three and phase away DX DSLRs in the future. But if this does not happen and Nikon chooses to keep the flange distance the same, APS-C mirrorless cameras from Nikon will always be at a disadvantage in terms of size and bulk. By creating a new mount for APS-C, Nikon can make smaller / lighter lenses and camera bodies.
- Keep the F mount, but get rid of the mirror: this is obviously the easiest and the cheapest route, and the one that ensures compatibility with all Nikon F mount lenses. With the mirror gone, APS-C mirrorless cameras could potentially be smaller in height (no pentaprism), but they would obviously have the same depth, since the mount to sensor distance has to stay the same. Camera bodies would potentially look box-like, which is hard to design with good ergonomics. At the same time, larger camera bodies would balance well with larger / longer lenses.
- Kill DX: if Nikon does not want to develop a separate mount for APS-C or transition it over to a mirrorless with the same flange distance, it also has a choice to kill DX completely and only concentrate on CX and FX formats. This scenario is less likely to happen.
4.2) FX
- Create a different mirrorless mount for full-frame sensors: basically, Nikon could do the same thing Sony did with their A7 and A7R cameras. This scenario is very unlikely to happen, as it would cripple all existing lens owners. With over 80 million lenses sold so far, Nikon would be shooting themselves in the foot by making a new mirrorless full-frame camera mount. Plus, it would be downright silly to attempt to make smaller full-frame cameras. Sony has moved to a smaller camera body, but they have to make compromises with lenses. It is optically impossible to make full-frame lenses with a full image circle much smaller than what they are today on DSLRs. Sony found a compromise by making lenses slower (f/4 vs f/2.8), so anything faster will result in huge lenses and balance issues. Nikon should stick to keeping the F mount for full-frame, as discussed below.
- Keep the F mount, but get rid of the mirror: this is most likely what Nikon will end up doing in the future. All current and old Nikkor lenses will continue to work, since the flange distance will be the same. Pro-level FX cameras will still be heavy and bulky for better balance with long lenses, while smaller and lighter FX cameras will also be available for those that worry about weight.
5) Canon’s Mirrorless Future
I believe that Canon is in a slightly better boat than Nikon for moving to mirrorless. First, it has no small-format mount to support like Nikon CX. Second, it has already stepped into the mirrorless market with an APS-C size sensor – the Canon EOS M was its first iteration and the company has been releasing updates, although a bit too late and typically not in the USA. Naturally, Canon might move all of its APS-C EF-S cameras to the M mount. The only thing that will be left is the full-frame EF mount, which will most likely follow the same destiny as Nikon’s F mount, without a mirror but with the same flange distance. This way, Canon will only concentrate on two mounts – EOS M and EF.
6) More Thoughts and Updates in 2017
After publishing the original article, I decided to revisit the topic and add a few more notes, since it is a hot topic of discussion that constantly comes up at PL and other photography sites. Recently, as part of the launch of the X-Pro2, Fuji presented a slide that showed a mirrorless camera on a scale with 2 cans of beer on one side, and a single DSLR on another, with text above stating “Extra 2 cans of 500ml beer”:
Which shows the level of absurdity and ridiculousness the subject of DSLR vs mirrorless is reaching today.
Nikon is obviously not happy with its financial performance, blaming the global state of the economy for not being able to reach its financial forecasts, quarter after quarter, year after year for the past few years now. While that might be one of the reasons for disappointing sales, both Nikon and Canon surely feel threatened by the mirrorless competition, which is moving faster and more aggressively. In a recent video, Nikon also compared its D500 with mirrorless cameras, specifically pointing out the faster and the more reliable AF system, so the rise of mirrorless cameras is definitely something Nikon feels threatened by.
7) Weight and Size Considerations
Having owned and used Nikon DSLRs for close to 10 years now, I relate to DSLRs more than mirrorless cameras: it is a system I can trust, build and expand on. DSLRs satisfy pretty much any kind of photography needs and genres. At the same time, during the past few years I have been shooting more and more with the new generation mirrorless cameras and I can see their appeal as well. One of the advantages of switching to mirrorless we see repeated over and over again, is related to weight and size. The big question is, are mirrorless cameras really that much smaller and lighter than DSLR cameras to make them that much more appealing in comparison? Our very own Bob Vishneski has already addressed this question in his in-depth analysis and his conclusion was that one should not look at size and weight advantages as the main factors when comparing full-frame mirrorless to DSLRs. True, mirrorless cameras are always going to be lighter than their DSLR counterparts – after-all, there are less parts and the cameras have thinner profiles, but the differences are not as significant as one might expect, and those differences are only relevant to camera bodies. Full-frame mirrorless offers zero advantages compared to full-frame DSLRs in lens size and weight! So if you have a bag full of gear, the only area where you can save space and weight is the camera body alone. And once you add a few more batteries to the mirrorless arsenal, those differences will decrease even further.
At launch, Sony’s original message was “lighter and smaller” too, but as of the Sony A7 II and the latest Sony G-series lens announcements, we can clearly see that Sony is no longer heavily pushing weight/size advantages anymore, focusing more on superior handling/ergonomics and delivering professional-quality lenses – the two areas where Sony has been struggling so far. Well, those new G-series lenses are no lighter than their DSLR counterparts, simply because you cannot defeat the laws of optics; after-all, the image circle of the full-frame system is the same on both. While shorter flange distance might allow for specific lens designs that might offer some size and weight advantages, in the grand scheme of things, they are not as significant at the end of the day.
Where mirrorless does in fact offer weight and size considerations, is if we look at smaller APS-C sensors. Sadly, DSLR manufacturers have been very slow at offering compelling lens choices for their APS-C DSLR cameras. For example, if we compare Fujifilm’s lenses to Nikon’s DX lenses, we will see that the former offers far better lens choices that are specifically made for the Fuji X mount, whereas most of Nikon’s DX lenses are slow, consumer-grade zoom lenses, which makes the Nikon DX shooter opt out for the more expensive, bulkier and heavier full-frame / FX lenses. In such situations, mirrorless is the obvious winner, because lenses designed specifically for the smaller sensor are always going to be lighter and more compact. Canon is not better in this regard either – most of Canon’s APS-C lenses are limited to slow zoom lenses as well.
8) APS-C DSLR Future
And this is why I have been saying for years that APS-C DSLRs do not have a future. Without a solid line of APS-C lenses, neither Nikon nor Canon can offer a truly equivalent system to mirrorless. Four years ago, I wrote an article titled “why DX has no future“, in which I argued about this exact point: lack of high-quality glass, leaving DSLRs at a disadvantage in terms of weight and bulk when compared to mirrorless. In between and especially after the Nikon D500 announcement, a number of our readers have questioned my article, saying that I was wrong with my prediction back then. I must admit, I definitely thought that things would happen quicker than they have been, but I am still holding on to my prediction – I believe that APS-C mirrorless will take over APS-C DSLRs in the future. Mirrorless camera manufacturers like Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and others have been focusing heavily on building lenses specifically for their mounts and the size / bulk advantages are clear: they certainly do offer a large selection of lenses which now surpasses the selection of lenses that both Nikon and Canon offer for their APS-C cameras. And not only in quantity, but also in quality! Nikon and Canon failed to make truly attractive APS-C lenses, focusing much of their efforts in making full-frame lenses instead, and at this point, I believe it is too late for them to catch up. Here, mirrorless already has the undeniable advantage. Why would you choose a Nikon D3300 kit, if you can pick up a Sony A6000 kit for the same price, ending up with a more compact and innovative camera? And this is just the beginning – cameras like the new Sony A6300 will be leading in AF performance and reliability, which DSLRs soon won’t be able to compete with.
While Nikon did indeed do a phenomenal job with the release of the D500, this high-end DX camera only interests a specific niche of photographers who are into sports and wildlife photography (keep in mind that I have predicted this camera back in 2012, as it states in the above-mentioned article, in reference to a D400) – not everyone is interested in spending $2K on an APS-C camera that can shoot 10 fps, when a full-frame DSLR or mirrorless can be bought for less money. DSLR manufacturers successfully continue to sell such gear, because of system superiority – no mirrorless manufacturer today has equivalent super telephoto lens choices.
9) Buying Into a “System”
When we look at the sales data from the past few years, things look pretty confusing – if mirrorless is the future, why do DSLRs still dominate the sales charts globally? In my opinion, there are several reasons for this. First, it takes a while to influence the potential buyer with the message “bigger is not always better”. The word “mirrorless” is relatively new and educating people about its advantages is taking time. Second, people generally resist switching systems due to existing investments. If one already owns a bunch of lenses and accessories, they avoid going through the hassle of selling everything and re-acquiring gear. It is an expensive process both in terms of gear expenditures (selling used gear, especially cameras and accessories, generally does not yield much money to reinvest in an equivalent system from another manufacturer) and time to learn and adapt to new tools. And lastly, before making the move, photographers often assess the camera system as a whole and put deep thoughts into what pros and cons they will have to go through when buying into a new system. That right there is a huge disadvantage of the mirrorless system today: it does not offer the same number of tools, accessories and lenses when compared to DSLRs, which puts off many enthusiasts and professionals from making the jump.
A DSLR shooter has a lot of options. One could start out with portrait photography, then move to macro photography, then perhaps landscapes / architecture and if they ever wanted to, they could also get into wildlife photography; lens choices are there for pretty much every type of photography. The same goes for accessories – chances of finding compatible flash guns, TTL speedlights, triggers and many other accessories are higher for DSLRs than they are for mirrorless cameras, just because they have been out much longer and have been widely accepted as the gold standard among professionals. Because of these system advantages, many photographers have been quite cautious about moving to mirrorless.
But things are changing fast. If a couple of years back mirrorless had a very small selection of lenses, today that list has grown tremendously, covering many photography needs. The biggest holes to fill are still in specialized lenses like tilt/shift and super telephotos, but that will be coming fairly soon, especially once mirrorless catches up in the autofocus department.
10) Mirrorless vs DSLR AF Performance
Speaking of which, if a couple of years back one could laugh at how bad autofocus was on mirrorless cameras, things are changing rapidly today, in favor of mirrorless. Unless DSLR manufacturers find ways to convert optical analog output into digital for further analysis, mirrorless will soon surpass DSLRs in AF performance and especially AF accuracy. How? It is quite simple: data derived directly from the recording medium (camera sensor) cannot be analyzed on a DSLR, because that path is blocked by the mirror and the closed shutter in front of the sensor. Autofocus is performed via the AF module, which receives light / analog image from the secondary mirror, as described in our Phase Detection Autofocus article. In comparison, mirrorless cameras have to see through the camera sensor, which allows information projected on the sensor to be scanned and analyzed before capture. Today, mirrorless cameras have phase-detection sensors built right on the imaging sensor and once that information is combined with exposure and other relevant data, the possibilities are practically endless. We have already seen how effective face recognition can be on mirrorless cameras, and if manufacturers continue to make improvements in that area, soon enough every image you take will be tack sharp, with the camera automatically focusing on the nearest eye of the person. Some cameras are already capable of recording images before the shutter is released, to avoid taking pictures of subjects with their eyes closed, and we have already seen cameras taking a picture at the moment the subject smiles. You cannot have such advanced intelligence on DSLRs, not until light continuously reaches some kind of imaging sensor. Tracking subjects gets easier with advanced analysis of the scene and the camera can even potentially predict subject movement and its direction.
In fact, check out the AF capabilities of the latest Sony A6300 and how it does with capturing fast moving subjects:
With a whopping 425 focus points, the A6300 can analyze a lot of information to accurately focus and track a subject. While this kind of technology has not made its way into other, more advanced / higher-end mirrorless cameras, the A6300 can be looked at as a “test bed” for what we will see in the future. This kind of intelligence will bring superiority of mirrorless cameras over DSLRs rather quickly. It is just a matter of time – we can expect the next iteration of Sony full-frame cameras to have such amazing AF capabilities.
In addition, mirrorless cameras do not have to be restricted in terms of focus point coverage like DSLRs do – focus points can exist all over the sensor, not only allowing the photographer to choose any part of the frame for focusing, but also give the ability for the AF system to utilize more focus points for subject tracking.
11) Battery Life Challenges
Most mirrorless camera manufacturers shot themselves in their feet by trying to make mirrorless smaller and lighter. Because of that, companies like Sony have been recycling the same lightweight batteries that do not have enough capacity to shoot more than a few hundred frames. For mirrorless to truly compete with DSLRs, manufacturers need to start offering cameras with much beefier batteries. Until we see some real advancements in battery technology and power usage, the best thing to do at this point is to increase battery capacity. If battery life can be doubled now, it will surely make mirrorless cameras much more attractive to current DSLR shooters. And if that increases camera size a little, so be it – a lot of DSLR shooters complain about mirrorless cameras being too small for their fingers anyway.
12) Lack of Innovation
If we compare DSLRs to mirrorless cameras in terms of technological advancements, it is clear that DSLRs do not deliver as much innovation anymore. We can perhaps get better resolution, fps, better video features, better AF modules and perhaps more built-in features like WiFi and GPS, but that’s not enough to truly excite the younger generation of photographers. Mirrorless cameras will continue to provide many more features to be excited about, because possibilities are truly endless. A lot can be done with EVFs and sensor output alone. With advanced data analysis, we could soon start seeing sensors capable of delivering practically unlimited dynamic range. What if a camera could capture images continuously, adjusting exposure on different parts of the scene, then stitching all of that information into a single RAW file? No more burned highlights to deal with or harsh shadows to recover! Like I’ve said, endless possibilities.
13) Conclusion – Are We There Yet?
While mirrorless is definitely advancing fast, there are some real issues that still need to be addressed before I can recommend them fully over DSLRs. Better battery life, more reliable autofocus system (particularly for shooting fast and unpredictable action), larger buffer, better lens choices (especially super telephoto), improved / smoother EVFs, WiFi + GPS and better ergonomics are all areas of improvement for mirrorless cameras. The gaps are still there, but they are closing fast. Within the next few years, we should see camera manufacturers offer mirrorless options that can truly compete with modern DSLRs in every way, but it has not happened yet. Developing super telephoto lenses will take some time too, so it will probably be a few more additional years until we see fast 400mm+ prime lenses.
No matter how we look at it, I believe that the clock for DSLRs has already been ticking. Unless Nikon and Canon get into the mirrorless game now, they will lose out heavily later. DSLRs might be selling better than mirrorless today, but the situation will surely change, it is just a matter of time. While both companies currently offer mirrorless systems, neither CX nor EOS M can compete directly with other mirrorless systems on the market today. Plus, both mounts seem to be heavily underdeveloped and more or less abandoned. Canon has been staying away from the US market with its mirrorless updates, whereas Nikon’s foray into the mirrorless world seems to be coming to a halt – the last time the company released a CX lens was two years ago…
I am not suggesting Nikon and Canon to develop new mirrorless mounts. In fact, I believe it would be a mistake now, because they would have to start over with lens development, which they are already pretty late in the game for, as it takes years to develop a solid line of lenses for a new mount. My suggestion would be to start out with a DSLR-like mirrorless camera with the same flange distance as the current mounts. If Nikon and Canon can get their feet into the mirrorless market and invest more time and resources into making solid cameras, they will be able to keep their existing customers for a while and continue enjoying their market dominance. But if they act too slow, they risk of becoming the next Kodaks of the photography world.
What do you think about this? Please share your thoughts below!
Nice article. For professional applications like sports, wedding, portrait, it looks like people would still want/have to go for DLSLR both for functionality (e.g. fast autofocus as in sports photography) and professional appearance purposes (portraiture and wedding where clients may still see a person carrying DSLR as pro though this distinction is being ignored slowly?). However, if you take out these considerations, do you think mirror less are at par with DSLR in terms of producing quality images when compared side by side at identical settings? At least going by comparison of Nex 5 and D700 I have, D700 with all glass I have produces sharper images with better focus. I realized that Nex is too bad in low light autofocus especially with the zoom lens. Probably comparing between these two is not fair and the latest mirrorless are getting better than Nex5 and this difference is further reduced to insignificant levels.
Just an additional question, are there any mirrorless that can come close to D800 or 5DMIII in image quality or it is too much asking at this stage of evolution?
Sony A7 and A7R.
At this stage in the game, I want to move to full frame. I can’t decide between the D810 or the A7R. Which route would you go at this point given that Sony is releasing more lenses?
I’ve got a D800 and a Fuji X-E1 and I’m very impressed of the image quality (sharp and nice colours) and noise that the fuji gives me.
I, too, have the D800 and just got the Fuji X-E1. I used the Fuji X100 prior to this and was impressed. I now think the X-E1 offers nice alternatives when I want to travel light yet have flexibility for different focal lengths. This article is excellent and offers some insights regarding true current camera market.
i think asp-c format still hard to fight to FF. D800 better than XE1 so much!
Read Rob Sheppard’s blog http://www.mirrorlessnature.com/2013/10/my-panasonic-gh3.html and you wil see according to his “real life” experiments he says to his eyeball the image quality of his GH3.
Quote “I know, everyone wants to know how good this camera is. I have been very, very impressed with its results. The results are better than anything I got from the Canons I had shot (7D and 60D) and the Sony NEX cameras. I was really curious to see how good the camera really was, so I went to Paul’s Photo, run by my friend, Mark Comon, and shot off some side by side shots with a Canon 5D Mark III. I was blown away by how good the GH3 was. At ISO 200-400, you have to look really, really close to see any difference at all, and what normal person uses a magnifying glass to look at photos?”
As a guest blog post on Rob’s blog, read what Bill Fortney ( http://billfortney.com ) has to say about his Fuji X-Pro 1, quote “When I looked at the files from my afternoon shoot, I was astounded! They were the closest thing I had ever seen to the files I was getting out of the Nikon D4 and D800!!!!”
Read his post here http://www.mirrorlessnature.com/micro-four-thirds/ on Bob’s blog.
If these two camera systems are good enough for these Professional Photographers they are good enough for me as a nature photographer…….. choices choices.
Very glad to hear these developments, at least one dont get to lug around backbreaking bulky cameras for paltry outputs.
I prefer the weight. It shows that I am actually working. I’d lug around a studio 4×5 if I had to and have in the past.
Well said avid Martin! Since when did a DSLR become such an awful burden? It is larger than the new mirrorless cameras, but pro photographers have been happy to carry them for generations.
These days, everyone expects everything to be packaged into a smartphone because they don’t like to carry anything with a little weight… then they go to a gym to try and gain some muscle and body tone. lol
When working, I have no problem lifting and carrying my DSLR and a lens or two. There are professions where you have to do a lot more for less money!
Right, but that’s only for now. Give it a couple of more years and I believe we will see a robust hybrid AF system that could be used for sports and action as well.
As for mirrorless vs DSLR in image quality – absolutely! APS-C sensors go shoulder to shoulder in performance. The same with the new Sony A7/A7R vs D600/D800. Sharper images are the result of better lenses – put a good lens on a mirrorless and it can do equally good.
Wait until the A7 / A7R is reviewed here – I will show differences in image quality and noise vs D800.
Nasim,
This is puzzling me and possibly others. Am I correct to understand that if you are to compare a 35mm vs a crop censor and its lens you need to adjust focal length and the Aperture. e.g. 11- 35mm 2.8 crop sensor Panasonic GH4 and its lens is 24 – 70mm 5.6 aperture lens if converted to 35mm equiv. Are we being hood winked. and is there less light being let in so the ISO will have to go up in any given circumstance :)
Hi Darrell,
If you take an f2.8 11-35mm focal length lens on a crop frame the field of view you get (what you see in the picture) is exactly what you would see in a full frame with a longer lens (If the GH4 has a crop factor of 2 then the lens would act like a 22-79mm ). The small sensor is “cropping” the middle out of the image coming in. (Of course, the lens isn’t supplying as big an image as a full frame lens would which allows it to be smaller and lighter). There is another thread arguing about this.
Now, the aperture I am not 100 % certain of but I will pretend I know: The light coming in is the same as an f2.8 on the full frame. You should get the same exposure. However the depth of field will be greater with the GH4. I think but don’t know that the depth of field will be like a 5.6 on the full frame (everything else being equal). This is why Fuji supplies an F1.2 56mm lens. It translates into an f1.8 85mm lens which is what I love to use for portraits on my full frame Nikon. (The Fuji X has a 1.5 crop factor).
You remind me that I need to try out the X for a bit and can see if the 56 would act like an f1.2 as far as exposure goes. I am leaning more and more toward getting one instead of stepping up to a D4S.
Paul
Thanks for your reply. I understand the formula is Focal Length/Iris Size = Aperture therefore for the above 11-35 lens it is 70mm(35mm crop) / 12.7mm = 5.6 and not 2.8 which is what Panasonic quotes. See video attached in link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
Look forward to somebody verifying if this is correct cheers
Hi again Darrell,
I’ve watched half the video and will have to finish and rewatch it. He has some interesting things to say.
But notice at 16:30. The FF and m4/3 example shows that to get the same final exposure both cameras have the same settings for ISO and f-stop. So when Panasonic quotes the lens as f/2.8 they are referring to it’s “speed” or how much light it can grab and they are correct in this which is what I was guessing before. What he is referring to is the depth of field characteristics of the lens and for that the Panasonic f/2.8 does not behave as a 2.8 lens does on a full frame.
The DoF issue is similar to the focal length issue. The 35 mm panasonic does have a optical focal length of 35 mm. However, used on a m4/3 camera it does not have the same field of view as a 35mm lens does on an FF camera. I’m not sure how to improve the confusion all of this is causing other than to mark lens with the FF equivalent focal length instead of their actual focal length. I don’t know enough to know what other confusion that would cause though.
I am going to have to rewatch his comments on ISO. They appear to be somewhat interesting but useless un everyday use.
Nasim, there is no reason that a mirror-less camera has to be smaller than a SLR camera. For many the size and weight of current DX cameras feels just right. Keeping a mirror-less camera at the size that many of us are used to, would provide an easier transition to mirror-less me thinks for many. I certainly would entertain one if all my dx lenses would fit as easily as they do to my d7200. So, instead of coming out with new smaller bodies, turn current models into mirror-less cameras.
I would say that the reason you see better results from your D700 vs the Nex-5 is because the D700 is a $3000 dollar device and is in a higher tier then the Nex-5 which isn’t in the top tier of mirror less cameras like a Sony Alpha 7R.
So in reality if the Nex-5 is even half as good that’s pretty impressive its less then a quarter of the price, the fact that people may even think those are comparable is also pretty impressive and means it is very good value wise.
brah,a full frame mirrorless lens will not be small in anyway, just look at A7 lens, it may look smaller but that’s Sony and manufacturer bow down to the demand to make things smaller, thats why the most mirrorless camera has crippled aperture specs
the main idea of mirrorless is to get rid of unnecessary component, the mirror box since their existent is inherently of films days (mirror act as the light insulator for the delicate film). we are stucked with this dinosaurs design because of film,its complex,manufacturer often get the calibration wrong,third part lens manufacturer has even harder time with its calibration, the mirror and separate phase detection chip are no longer needed.
Great unbiased article that is spot on.
Yes, I agreed, I am getting my new Sony a6500 this month mainly because of the size/weight and performance!
Dear Nasim,
Thank you for the interesting article (and articles). You mentioned something about mirror slap. About 4 months ago I purchased a 50mm 1.8G and it seems my pics are less sharp. I did test it in the shop for back or front focus but is seems ok. I’ve tried mirror-up, remote control, tripod and all, which seems to help. Even shooting with with SB-910 on camera seems to benefit because the whole package just feels heavier. But when I just use the lens on my camera it feels like this lens adds more “vibration” when I press the shutter.
I have de the D7000 and used it with a 35mm 1.8G, 85 1.8G, Sigma 17-50 OS without any real issues. The lighest of these is the 35mm, but no problem with this. The Sigma I have used without the OS being engaged and have not noticed any issues due to camera shake. The 85mm 1.8G is just wonderful, no issue here either.
So, is it the lens not withstanding the mirror slap, or is it lens slap?
No, I don’t think mirror slap has anything to do with blurry images on your camera with the 50mm. If there are no AF issues and you know that for sure, try increasing the shutter speed – perhaps it is too slow. Also, try shooting outdoors in good light – perhaps there is not enough light for the AF system.
Thanks Nasim. I did try higher shutter speeds, which looks like the camera even shakes more. I do not know what it is, but I am not super content with this lens for some reason. Perhaps I am spoiled with my 85mm 1.8G?
Nasim,
This is puzzling me and possibly others. Am I correct to understand that if you are to compare a 35mm vs a crop censor and its lens you need to adjust focal length and the Aperture. e.g. 11- 35mm 2.8 crop sensor Panasonic GH4 and its lens is 24 – 70mm 5.6 aperture lens if converted to 35mm equiv. Are we being hood winked. and is there less light being let in so the ISO will have to go up in any given circumstance :)
Best not to adjust any of the attributes, a 50mm f1.8 is a 50mm f1.8 on all formats. Its focal length, aperture, depth of field, compression etc is constant. The only thing to change is the field of view, learn which lens to use for your particular format and don’t compare them across formats QED
For future cameras (mirrorless FX size) I would like to see another change (especially for pro-level). My suggestion: A “Round” sensor. Reasons below:
1) Lenses are round, so why not the sensor? This would remove the requirement to rotate the camera between landscape and portrait.
2) If you add a battery pack to such a camera, it does not need additional controls. Therefore cheaper to make, and could perhaps contain two batteries, thereby vastly extending the shot life.
3) When cropping round shots, even if your camera was not held level, rotation of the image would not result in cropping out part of the desired image. Cropping to portrait or landscape would present no problem. In effect, all shots are thereby done in both ways simultaneously, and you have your choice in post. Am I the only person who ever wishes I had shot a pic one way instead of the other?
These are the first few advantages I see to such a system. Anybody else got ones they would like to add?
WEJ
1. If they make a round sensor, imagine how the shutter would be like. Would also have to be a shutter that can rotate if you don’t have to rotate the body. And if a round sensor, it would have to be larger, and it’s harder and more expensive to make a round sensor than it is to make rectangular sensors. Also waste more space (you can divide a large flat sheet of sensor into rectangles and squares, but if you divide them into circles, it’s not as cost-effective due to the wasted sensors between).
2. Where would the second battery pack be located? Instead of a second battery pack, wouldn’t it just make more sense to have a battery with more mAh (think D3/D3S battery).
3. So when viewing the image on your computer, it’ll be a round image? Or will the camera automatically crop. If the latter, that’s processing time and will slow down the buffer for high FPS bodies. If you wished you shot the image vertically/horizontally otherwise, then should have just rotated the camera body. That or shoot with a super-sharp lens and a high-resolution body, and then crop in the orientation you wished it to be.
William, while it is a nice idea, designing such a system would be pretty much unrealistic. Shutter mechanism would be insane – anything other than leaf would not work. On top of that, how would you store circular images? Everything in digital is linear – so there would be a lot of wasted space. I think it is more realistic to make a square sensor, but not a round one…
Imagine a digital ROLLEIFLEX!
No mirror slap, reflex viewfinder, silent and vibration less leaf shutter, max. syncro times up to 1/800 with the Rollei electronic leaf shutter, sturdy construction, shutter/aperture in the lens so when in trouble one just change the lens (Mamiya C330), AF and AE independently from the sensor system (two lenses), permanent LV whit out using the recording sensor so no heating and less noise (the LV could be done through a second and simpler/cheaper sensor via the VF lens), etc…
AND a magnificent retro look, Df —> D-Rollei!
The show must go on!
Not needing to rotate the camera for orientation was actually one of the big get used to issues for shooters moving from the old 620 square Rollei frame to the then new comer Nikon 35mm, that a 35 format camera has other advantages is proven in history, Nikon is here and Rollei is not but the 620 square frame principle is one way to eliminate the orientation flip.
Changing the issue slightly, why do DSLR cameras need a shutter at all? Especially ones that are mirrorless. Follow the items below:
1) Mirrorless cameras display an image on either an LCD or EVF. That image is read FROM THE SENSOR.
2) Since the image is read from the sensor, that means that the sensor must already be exposed, hence nothing (IE mirror and/or shutter) is blocking the sensor.
3) Therefore, why does there need to be a shutter at all? To my thinking, the shutter function should only be a case of programming: How long (shutter speed) will the image from sensor be read from?
Obviously I am missing something (since there is a shutter), but the question is still there: Why does there have to be a shutter at all for a Digital based camera? Therefore, IF there is no shutter, the shape of the shutter would be a non-issue.
As for storing round images, so what? The main point is to avoid rotation of the camera (and, yes, square would work almost as well). For that reason, I have started shooting sports in 5:4. Please remember, I shoot primarily sports, so I therefore base my needs/wants on what makes that easier.
I also believe that a shutter-less camera would have less, if perhapd even no, vignetting. With a shutter, the middle of the image is exposed for the longest time. The closer to the edge you get, the less amount of time that portion of the sensor is exposed and read. Shutter-less would mean that the ENTIRE image would all get the same amount of exposure time.
Would someone please enlighten this confused soul?
WEJ
By the way, I just read this on Wikipedia (not the best info source, but still can have some value). Copied and posted without any editing:
Electronic shutter[edit]
Digital image sensors (both CMOS and CCD image sensors) can be constructed to give a shutter equivalent function by transferring many pixel cell charges at one time to a paired shaded double called frame transfer shutter. If the full-frame is transferred at one time, it is a global shutter. Often the shaded cells can independently be read, while the others are again collecting light.[5] Extremely fast shutter operation is possible as there are no moving parts or any serialized data transfers. Global shutter can also be used for videos as a replacement for rotary disc shutters.
Image sensors without a shaded full-frame double must use serialized data transfer of illuminated pixels called rolling shutter. A rolling shutter scans the image in a line-by-line fashion, so that different lines are exposed at different instants, as in a mechanical focal-plane shutter, so that motion of either camera or subject will cause geometric distortions, such as skew or wobble.[6]
Me again: Therefore it would appear to me that DSLRs (with or without mirrors), should all use “Global Shutters”. One less mechanical part to wear out.
WEJ
How about getting rid of a mechanical shutter completely and replacing it with an electronic shutter that switches the sensor on and off?
That is exactly my main point, a Global Shutter (GS). The advantages of a GS on a mirrorless camera are:
1) No mirror slap;
2) No shutter;
3) Almost noiseless (by the removal of the above two);
4) No vibration (again by removal of items one and two);
5) I believe less vignetting (can only prove if made).
6) Faster shutter speeds (since no mechanical parts in the way).
7) Faster FPS (again, no mechanical parts in the way). Would need monster processor and memory.
Hey Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc, are you reading any of the above? Whoever comes out with the first camera described above could get a large market share almost immediately.
On a DSLR (with mirror), would still reduce noise (mirror slap still occurs, but no shutter noise), and item five (again yet to be proven). Perhaps small reduction in vibration from lack of shutter. Items six and seven would still be limited by mechanical parts (mirror).
Challenge to readers: Show me where I am wrong.
WEJ
On the verge of buying a Nikon D800E, I opted instead for the Sony NEX7. This was a big leap of faith for me as a dedicated Nikon user, but I decided since most of my real camera opportunities lately involved travel, I was weary of dragging a heavy camera and even heavier lenses with me on trips. Plus I travel for business and just didn’t want to drag my heavy camera gear with me. It was always an agonizing decision about which lenses to bring on trips abroad. I mean, if your sole purpose in travel is to take pictures, the decision might be easier, but I am not a professional and my husband and travel companion is tolerant but not interested in my hobby.
What if a smaller/lighter ( by far) mirrorless camera along with equally lighter lenses was able to take equivalent shots? So I invested in the Sony and 5 lenses which cost maybe a little more than the Nikon D800E camera itself. Two vacations and one workshop later, I am convinced I made the right choice. The picture quality of the Sony has been excellent especially with the 16mm-70mm Zeiss lens (fantastic). I am more likely to take my camera with me given it’s slight weight and small footprint which can only mean more chances to take pictures I might have otherwise missed.
My only dilemma now is the new full frame cameras Sony just released. I am tempted but I believe that Sony will just keep improving these cameras so I will wait until the next one or two generations of full-frame mirrorless cameras before I leap again.
I am truly saddened by the fact that Nikon has missed the boat here. I believe that the DSLR will go the way of film. And if Nikon lags behind, well, who wants to start at the beginning with a whole new set of lenses to move to Nikon once they catch up…..if they do.
Eileen, thank you for your feedback! I think you are safe with the NEX-7. Sony has already pointed out that they will keep on making both APS-C and full-frame Alpha series (the name NEX will no longer be used). So we should see some new Alpha that will replace the NEX-7 in the near future.
I still use Nikon and film. That won’t change as long as both are available. I prefer film over digital and that will not ever change! I guess that I’ll just sink with Nikon because I refuse to jump ship!
Nasim, fantastic, good summation of the differences between DSLR and Mirrorless cameras. I hope someone from Nikon reads this and starts to considers what you said about making a mirrorless body with a F mount full-frame sensor (FX). The thought of replacing all my glass with new glass just because it no longer fits a new body type would be disappointing and expensive. Although Canon did just that in 1987.
Thank you Patrick! I very much doubt Nikon will move to a new full-frame mirrorless format. It would be really foolish on their part. I think it would be logical to move APS-C to smaller mirrorless though…I just do not see APS-C surviving in a DSLR-like body.
Nasim,
My 2 cents,
Currently the biggest obstacle to mirror-less cameras is the limited range of lens. There needs to be a critical mass and range out there before they can challenge DSLRs.
Nikon will probably not introduce a mirrorr-less FX , as you have predicted. But that would be a fatal. Corporate graveyards hold many once powerful companies who sacrificed their futures to protect their past.
When X series started Nikon DX had a huge advantage on the lenses front. In less than 2 years I think FUJI X lense range is already superior to Nikon/Canon APS-C lenses? njt in quantity, but in quality. And the reason is – Nikon/Canon did not want to introduce the proper pro level DX lenses range because they wanted customers to switch one day to ther FF cameras with better lenses. This strategy is backfiring now. Anyone thinking about the upgrade within APS-C class has a choice – a brilliant new Nikon body (like a coming D7200) with a decent,but stagnating DX lense range, or, say, FUJI X with their brilliant new APS-C lenses ( incl. two 2.8 weather proof zooms coming in April) and fast evolvong bodies. Easy choice in my book.
As for FF DSLRs vs FF mirrorless, Nikon/Canon are in dire straits here as well. Yes, a small body on a large pro FF lense is not needed. But nevertheless a future FF mirrorless body will have a big advantage. It may not be nesessary smal, but it can be flat but wide/tall with a really large LCD touch screen, a good grip and an array of controls. It will be something like a thick tablet with a (detacheable) grip. Easy to store, a lot of on-screen conrols and options etc. Whereas a FF DSLR will have to keep this outdated bulky shape. So I guess FF DSLR is pretty much as doomed as APS-C DSLR.
Nice comparison – but you left out what is, for me, one of the most important attributes of mirrorless – the ability to design and use PRIME wide angle lenses instead of retrofocus ones – ala Leica – which will make the lenses sharper, smaller and hopefully cheaper !
Larry, I believe I pointed out that mirrorless systems are smaller and lighter – that applies to lenses as well!
Larry, more options in wide angle lens design is a big reason to adopt a shorter flange distance in my opinion. If Nikon did that, they might be able to make a mount adapter to enable the use of their older lenses, but that does add potential problems with alignment with another mounting point (lens-to-adapter plus adapter-to-camera).
If I understand correctly, retrofocus lenses do have the advantage of less light falloff at the edges of the image. But they are larger, more complicated, and difficult to correct for distortion.
Nasim, great summary of DSLR versus mirrorless designs. Maybe we can call them SLE (for Single Lens Electronic viewfinder)? Focus accuracy is what interests me the most, especially after the D800 debacle (which wouldn’t worry me as much if Nikon’s response had been better).
Hi
How about a mirrorless Nikon/Canon FX camera where we can use our existing dslr lenses…? Will Nikon or Canon bring up somthing like that ? If that happens then that will be the next gen cameras
Sri, yes, that’s exactly what I discussed in the above article.
Sri, IMHO mirrorless bodies that use full-size lens mounts miss the point of mirrorless: an end-to-end compact solution. Lenses for APS-C DSLRs are already much larger than they need to be because they use the same full-frame mounts. Micro-Four Thirds was built from the ground up: mirrorless, compact bodies with compact lenses because of a new mount designed for the MFT sensor.
I believe Fujifilm has the best compromise between image quality and size: larger APS-C sensors (than MFT), BUT still compact lenses thanks to a mount designed for APS-C rather than carried over from a full-frame mount. I think the photos speak for themselves: amazingly sharp and detailed, low noise, high dynamic range.
For ME PERSONALLY, the A7r is pointless. It’s neither better enough vs. the X-E2 to justify the larger camera and lenses, nor lighter enough vs. my D800E and lenses to make me switch.
Smaller cameras are all well and good until you pair them up with some good fast glass. Pair up a Sony A7 for example with a 300mm F2.8, and you’ll have a nightmare on your hands. I’d much rather see a mirrorless camera in a full SLR sized body (D800 size), one that is actually comfortable to use for an entire afternoon of shooting. It seems as if every mirrorless camera is made to be used with short prime lenses. That’s all well and good, but half my shooting is in the 200mm+ range. It should be noted that most mirrorless systems are dearly lacking in terms of good/fast telephoto lenses.
I also found with the mirrorless cameras that I have used that the lighter weight can actually work against you. The cameras were harder to hold steady, which increased the number of blurred shots in low light conditions.
Rob, yup, that’s why I believe that the best strategy for Nikon and Canon is to move to mirrorless while retaining a DSLR-like camera body.
The Sony A99 has a fixed translucent mirror and a full frame sensor in a DSLR style body. It avoids many of the issues associated with a moving mirror.
Totally agree with you Nasim, I love the idea of mirrorless and current have a EM1 but as a Nikon user with large hands, I much prefer the standard DSLR body, smaller bodies are not ideal, we used to have very small mobile phones, but they died in favour of much larger more comfortable to use sizes.
Futur is bright, there will be light at the end of the mirror. Just waiting for next Canon iteration. In the last two years Nikon has come up with bold products (using Sony sensors). They must have something up their sleeve. Just hope I can stick to my glass for some years.
thank you Nasim.
Francois, I am expecting Canon to release a pro-level EOS M next year – should be really good! As for other products, hard to say at the moment – I am still waiting for the Canon 7D MK II…
I think that in a couple years all Canon/Nikon DSLRs will be mirrorless/SLR hybrids, with a mirror and a phase detection scheme from the sensor and EVF, too. Canon’s already laying the ground work for it, look at the 70D. Professional cameras will stay DSLR for a while, an OVF is just nice to have in general, but I doubt anyone will buy APS-C DSLRs (asides from a 7D) in a few years anyway. It’s just a shame to know that Canon at least has a ton of the tech basically ready to go, but since for them it’s not as urgent I doubt they’ll make their next big camera (the 7Dmk2) a hybrid (though it will have Phase Detection AF on the sensor).
Ian, yup, that’s what will probably happen. Might be a few years before full-frame moves to mirrorless, but it will happen!
Thank you Nasim for the excellent write-up. I’ve been waiting for this – you mentioned in a comment that you were doing an article on Nikon’s possible mirrorless strategy.
I fully agree with your predictions. It makes a tons of sense for Nikon to do FF mirrorless retaining the F-mount. With some clever design, Nikon could easily do bodies as thin as 50mm. They are going to be thicker than Sony’s, but that’s actually an advantage. FF mirrorless lenses will be just as big as their DSLR counterparts. See Sony’s new kit lens: 28-70mm F/3.5-5.6 – currently the slowest and most limited lens as far as FF kit lenses go. And there’s a reason for that – Sony wanted to keep the size down, possibly for ergonomic reasons. And that lens is only 40 grams lighter than the Nikkor 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5, and it’s considerably wider, a bit longer and s stop brighter on the long end!
For DX, I’m not sure, but I still think retaining F-mount would be the better option for Nikon. Design is unbelievable important (along with ergonomics). 50mm sounds a bit thick, but with some clever design it could be made an attractive camera. I’m not sure that the old NEX APS-C design is that great with those big lenses. The Olympus OM-D E1 is 63mm thick, and is generally considered great design, with a much smaller sensor than APS-C. I think the DX crowd could live with a little bit of thickness, and Nikon could do Fuji or Olympus type DX cameras. Now that would be a dream come true! Unfortunately, I don’t have faith in Nikon to do this. For those potential customers who would consider weight & size above all else, Nikon has the CX, which beats all other players in terms of lens size.
I will always use dSLR’s and that will not ever change! Sorry, but I refuse to jump on this technical boat!
Thanks for all the effort this took, Nasim. Great comparison!
You are most welcome Patrick! I hope it was worth the read :)
Dear Nasim,
what an excellent and well researched article. Thank you.
This is really a bad time if faced with the decision to buy a new camera. No doubt that DSLRs will become extinct but the mirrorless just don’t seem to cut it just yet for a professional portrait and action photographer given the development stage of EVF and the ergonomic features when using it with larger lenses.
On the other hand, the weight of a D800 with a battery pack and with even a normal 85mm lens for portrait shooting is HEAVY. But while the body may get smaller, accessories like flashes won’t and, as you said, great full frame lenses are unlikely to shrink either.
I wish Nikon had already launched a full frame mirrorless innovative camera instead of a retro camera design. I understand that the barriers of change must be huge in those companies right now, but it’s either self-cannibalisation to a certain extent or the new entrants without this heavy burden from the past will become the new market leaders.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t help that Nikon and Canon are seeing a strong decline in revenues in their camera business, so there is less money to drive innovation. As Nikon is so heavily dependent on their photo business, we might even see it being acquired by another company which might be the end of a era altogether.
Its not a bad time to buy dslrs.
The transition wont happen for 3-5 years.
Buy a dslr if you want fx, the D610/D800es are spectacular.
Or just get an Olympus Omd em1 if youre missing the D400.
Wolfgang, definitely not a bad time to buy – it is actually THE best time to buy :) So many great choices – and they are all good. If mirrorless is too expensive or inconvenient, get a DSLR. Those will stay alive for at least 3-4 years before anything drastic happens.
As for Nikon and Canon not launching a mirrorless – they will first test their technologies on lower-end cameras. Once the concept is proven, then it will move to bigger cameras. That’s how they have done it for years and I doubt they will change that methodical approach.
Brilliant article, your thoughtfulness is very much appreciated from your readers.
My feeling is that Nikon will transition the APSC sensor to mirrorless….. VERY soon.
I think thats why there is no D400 — Nikon is going to release a mirrorless PRO camera that is going to kill the competition, and it will be called the D400. I dont k ow how the lenses will work, but im sure Nikon will make an adapter for this transition.
As for FX, I think you are 100% right. And that this is why Nikon is playing with the Df. AND why they made it the same size as the D610. Not only is Nikon going to eventually transition FX to mirrorless, but the Df is supposed to indicate the style of body that this new mirrorless might take — namely, retro.
Think about it, if FX must be big and boxy, the way to make that attractive is to hark the older cameras which were basically… boxes. Many retro cameras make boxy look good, and medium format has always been boxy yet respected….. so, as Nikon walks past medium format resolution and medium format ISOes, it will also transition FX into a Dfesque retro format for those who want the best (the same reason we lugged around MF, etc).
This is the proper vision for Nikon.
Everyone keeps their lenses, but Nikon has 3 lines of mirrorless camera formats. The D3200 level will go away and be replaced by the Nikon 1. And the APSC line will kill Olympus. And the FX/Df line will be the modern medium format.
Thank you sir!
As for the D400 – I doubt it will be mirrorless, but who knows. It usually takes a few years for this kind of technology to develop and mature for Nikon to consider it seriously. It would certainly be nice though :)
D400 should be sports camera, which means in no way it’ll be mirrorless.
just an observation:
the presence of mirror determines the distance of the lens from the sensor. in a leica the lens is much closer to the film, and can be significantly smaller. a problem arises however with corners, and a few wide angle lenses cannot be used with digital bodies…
Gianpaolo, it is not the presence of the mirror that determines the distance – a mirror could be smaller (DX) and yet the distance is the same as FX. But you are right, Leica cameras have a shorter flange and their primes are smaller. However, there are two very important factors to consider:
a) If the flange distance is smaller, only certain focal length lenses could be cut in size (mostly wide-angle to normal).
b) Leica has no AF in their lenses, which is why they are much smaller in size. If Leica added AF, their lenses would no longer retain the same dimensions.
I present to you CONTAX G mount: http://www.kenrockwell.com/contax/g-system.htm
Small lenses WITH autofocus.
It is not only the mechanical body of the DSLR camera that was build to look like an old film camera.
It actually started with the scanning back when we made the first Phase One cameras. Not to remove the photographers to far from their familiar ways off working the software where build around the handles and terms of photography even though the technology was much more from the reproduction/scanning world.
We made strategic business decision that took the repo world to the photographers and not the photo world to the repro work shops/service houses.
That is one reason that the powerhouses like agfa, Heidelberg etc. newer got a foot in the new business. The first wave was small start-ups like Leaf, Phase One and Imacon (Hasselblad).
Thank you for clarifying that Kasper!
Nasim
You do not need any clarification on your well written article. I just wanted to provide a 20 year old perspective from the early days of digital photography.
Just in case there might be a few that would like the historical picture.
Great article Nasim. As an ambassador for the “mirrorless” camera I enjoyed reading your article. If the Nikon Df had been a mirrorless camera which could have used existing lenses I would have applauded it. However, Nikon missed another trick and should have capitalised on the technology from the Coolpix “A” and V1/2 as a foundation for their first real mirrorless offering. It would have been affordable too. Instead they gave us “sexy” instead of “substance”!
As both a D800 and D7100 user, I long for a mirrorless camera for wildlife shooting with good fps and high buffer speeds. I love my D7100, but the buffering of RAW images is pathetic. On the basis that it looks like a D400 is now dead in the water, what a unique opportunity to bring out a mirrorless camera. Hopefully engineered to take Nikon existing FX lenses with a minimal (x1.5) crop factor. However, if Nikon is starting to walk the “sexy” road then this may well not happen.
Oh dear, I love my Nikons, however I will sell my soul to the first manufacturer to come up with a realistic mirrorless wildlife/sport digital offering.
Richard
Richard, the Nikon Df was 4 years in the making – even before the CX format was introduced :) It was severely delayed due to floods. Plus, it takes years for Nikon to make such technological jumps – I doubt that we will see a full-frame mirrorless any time soon…
Shame, a missed opportunity. I’ve seen nothing about this camera being years in the making anywhere, so that comes as a surprise to me. I am not interested in a full frame mirrorless, I meant an APS-C sensor mirrorless enabling FX lenses to operate with the x1.5 crop factor. That would be my choice and I would have thought we can’t be far from that being achievable. Or, did you mean Nikon are as fast in seizing technology as an ice flow?
Richard
You people are all sick and will be the destructive force of photography. You can keep your “progress” and I’ll keep my traditions. You can stick your evolution up your a$$!!!!
Thank you Nasim for a superb article, concisely reasoned. And this has also been one of the most intelligent discussions afterwards that I have read for a long time.
Many of my thoughts have already been addressed, and like others I think it might be wise to wait until the Mark 2 or 3 Sony arrives. I noted you last point with regret, that Nikon may take 3 years or so to respond as we should like. It may be too late for them. Other points of concern:
The equation between vibration invited by a body too light for the lens and the freedom from mirror slap offered by Mirrorless. If working up to 200 mm, how would you rate the A7R for vibration, comparatively? (And will the new long Zeiss f4 zoom offer the superb VR that we rely on from Nikon? The VR equivalent in my otherwise superb RX100 is really only good for 1 to 1.5 stops.)
Since losing the mirror mechanism will save money, has Sony really any excuse for the current prices of A7/R?
Does the AF have the ability currently to track moderately moving subjects in poor lighting, say with a 200 mm tele?
So far none of the reviews has recommended any short flange-distance W/A wider than 35 mm that gives clean and /or unsmeared corners on the A7 or A7R (which are supposed to have different sensors, the one being better than the other in this respect, although reported results are still contradictory!) Landscape photographers, even avid travellers, require this problem to be solved. For my own solution, despite hoping to shed 2/3 of the weight in my bag in the next few years, I have bought a 21 mm Distagon, preferring an extra 200 gms over spoiled quality, especially for a high-res sensor. Your comments on wide-angles, Leica lenses, Biogon, Contax etc. please!
Would it really be so expensive to produce a Rolleiflex with a Phase One-style back, that allows for an adaptor to take MF lenses, perhaps even including those for Mamiya 7?
Great article Nasim, thank you. The one question I have is that you mention the drawback of small sensor size of the Nikon 1 cameras. I am considering getting an Olympus OM 1 but do you think I will be seriously disappointed going from the full sensor of a Nikon D700 to the micro four thirds system?
Hey, I did not know that we have had so many serious problems with DSLRs :) A little bit exaggerated I think-
Some advantages that you put are only applicable to mirrorless cameras without EVF. Size of a D3200, and especially Canon 100D are similar to E-M1 and GH-3. The more mirrorless cameras try to get close to DSLRs in performance, the bigger they get.
I think the most advantegous mirrorless system is m4/3 due to their insanely small and excellent lenses. Body-wise, I don’t see any huge benefit. Plus, small = better equation is not always true from ergonomics perspective.
And, in case of A7/r, there is no benefit of size/weight whatsoever as soon as you attach an f2.8 zoom. A full frame system such as D610+24-70mm f2.8 is not hugely heavy and large compared to an A7 and a 24-70mm f2.8 (which we don’t have anyway).
For pro’s, the heaviest parts in a bag are lenses and flashes. With a FF system like A7, I don’t see a huge advantage because A lenses are also as big.
In a studio? No benefit whatsoever.
We are too much into body specs, and missing the real point: System. Give me smaller lenses, than we will talk again. The “body size” advantage is there, but it’s not THAT huge.
Hey Nasim – you said no current Nikon mirrorless APS-C. You forgot the Nikon Coolpix A. This may be a throwaway, but maybe it’s their first of many APS-C mirrorless models. Just like Fuji started with fixed lens X-100 and then went MILC with X-Pro1.
As a user, I think APS-C MILCs with lens mounts that are specifically designed around the shorter flange distances are the way to go for travel, street, landscapes, weddings, family (now that we have better phase detect) etc. where the smaller form factor is a real plus. Sensor technology is improving to where pixel pitch to noise ratio will not be as much of an issue (look at D7100 for example at 24MP and Fuji’s X series at 16MP).
And once on sensor phase detection and EVF technologies get to the next level, I think the manufacturers’ challenge might be to design a better way to balance and grip long teles on smaller cameras, rather than make big MILCs for sports and wildlife.
Coolpix A is not mirrorless, it’s a compact. Same with X100.
X-Pro1 is the only mirrorless in your post.
Tom… if we wish to describe and discuss FACTS of technology then you are absolutely correct, the Coolpix A IS in FACT a mirrorless DX camera and because of such, Nikon is learning about mirrorless via that camera.
What Nassim is pointing out (something that I find both pedantic and irreverent to your comment) is that, despite it being mirror-LESS, it might not be considered “mirrorless” to some.
Personally, I am still waiting for smaller/lighter long tele lenses designed for APS-c using either the current FF mirror box, a mirrorless design, or a dedicated APS-c mirrorbox !
Canon offers DO lenses and Nikon offers PF lens for DSLRs. Both being lighter and smaller than any direct equivalents for mirrorless cameras.
Hi Nasim,
Really nice article. My concerns for the mirrorless cameras are two fold.
My first stems from the lack of a proper viewfinder. I see so many of the mirrorless cameras being used like an iphone, held at arms length so the operator can see the rear screen, with the camera gently swaying in the breeze.
My other one is why we have a shutter at all.
The sensor is not a mechanical device but a set of electronic accumulators. It should be very possible to strobe the data (& after all, that’s all it is) into a register in much less time than it takes to make a shutter flap. There would have to be a delay or sensor of some sort built in for strobe input but otherwise it should be easy peasy.
Thanks again & keep up the good work.
Nasim, all this analysis and comparison between EVF and OVF and the paeans that you have sung in favour of the EVF is bull crap. EVF, however high the resolution may be achieved in future, cannot hold a candle to OVF in terms of clarity and reality.
And to think of the maestros like Bresson, Capa and Adams created such masterpieces without getting any tailor-made information in their viewfinder.
It maybe argued that what they could have done, had they got these modern innovations, but that will be missing the woods for the trees.
It is their unique vision that is and will be treasured by the future generation.
We all know and acknowledge this fact but somewhere down the line we all seem to get carried away.
You are completely correct! Don’t completely modify my field to improve your lack of capabilities. Carteir-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Robert Adams, Robert Frank were all legends and used the technology that is currently being used despite the digital part. I still use the darkroom and that won’t change until all film will be phased out and that will be a tragic day. I refused to jump on the digital bandwagon and I’ll do the same with the technical bandwagon. Don’t change what has taken years to perfect just because you want to play around with technology! I actually became a photographer because I fell in love with the technical aspects of the darkroom and lighting. Digital is flawed and I will always stick with that. I will not change quality for convenience! All you technical gurus will not ever change my mind and I will continue to teach other’s that!
Nikon can mimic Sony regarding flange to sensor distance for it’s APS-C and FF mirrorless cameras. The Sony NEX and FE bodies have the same flange distance, with FE mount lenses projecting a larger image circle to cover full frame. The A-mount lenses require an adapter to mount on NEX/FE bodies. Nikon could also make an adapter that allows mounting F-mount lenses on its mirrorless APS-C and FF bodies, just as it already makes an adapter to mount F-mount lenses to CX bodies. This way, Nikon can design smaller bodies in APS-C and full frame with a shorter flange distance, gradually release an extensive lens line for them, and still allow use of existing legacy lenses as long as required.
Thank you for your timely and comprehensive article. It provides an orientation and guidance to my contemplation of my future buying decisions — which is much appreciated.
I’d like to add my two bits to the discussion. The whole idea behind the pentaprism is that you can see what you’re going to get — in other words the elimination of parallax in a viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder pushes the envelope further as now you can see what the sensor is seeing after camera adjustments have been made. I believe that will be the winning technology. Optical lenses of course will still be with us. Conceivably a genius of the future will invent electronic lenses as well!
Actually, the main idea behind the pentaprism was for focusing ! Which leads me to my next question : Does anyone know to what extent you can manually focus using only an EVF ?? I ask, because with any of these mirrorless cameras, I would want to use older/cheaper manual focus lenses with adapters ……
Larry, that’s a great question! If you look at my article, I specifically addressed this question – when using manual focus lenses, you can actually zoom in to the image and see precise focus at zoomed range. This is amazing technology, something that you will instantly fall in love with once you see it! Sony does this and a number of others are implementing such features into their mirrorless cameras.
Thanks, I think I see what you are refering to – so it is still visual focusing with “electronic enhancement” …. I was worried regarding the resolution capabilities of the EVF, but I guess that is not such a great issue.
Re the DX format. Couldn’t Nikon just make a new mount for a mirrorless APS-C format and rather produce an adapter for DX lenses? No need to keep the flange distance if it can be solved with an adapter. They did it for CX with the FT-1 adapter.
I’d be very happy if the lenses could be somewhat smaller than they are. Even if it meant ditching the AF-S motor in the lenses.
What about lenses for mirrorless? Is there equivalent of 24-70 2.8? Do they have the same selections as DSLR?
No, none of the mirrorless systems offers 24-70 2.8 lens (even if you include equivalence calculation).
As for the lens selection – the best system in that regard, m4/3, offers worse lens selection than the smallest DSLR system currently existing – Pentax K. All of the other mirrorless systems are tiny in comparison. In theory you could use adapters, just like you can on DSLR, only from a wider selection of mounts, but these got their own problems.
The new Fuji 16-55 f2.8 is available for pre-order so there is now an equivalent to a FF 24-70. I have held a prototype and it isn’t a small lens but is compact and light (2/3) compared to my Nikon 24-70.
Thanks Nasim, definitely food for thought. I would totally agree with your comments and some of the user comments about future of DX, Nikon would be too late in the mirror less game with a decent sensor. I have been thinking lately about a move from Nikon to a smaller mirrorless system, ideally full frame. Was close to buying a D610, then awaited the DF launch which came with a ridiculous price tag (USD=GBP) and with no video function (not that I use that a lot, but I strongly feel that the price tag just reflects the look and the image of the camera rather than features). D800 or higher is too much for my use and I did not consider D7100 as my FX lenses would be underused.
I am seriously thinking about getting the Sony A7 with either Zeiss 35mm prime or 16-70mm F4 when it comes out in December, just wish they had faster lenses. But I hear they have sensor improvements to compensate the slow lenses. I will wait to see how the IQ compares to D610/D800 and then will make the decision. At least a comparable low light performance and higher RAW burst rate would be a bonus. Would be great if you could get your hands on one and post a review as soon as it comes out. Thanks!
Hi LoveEat,
I am intrigued by the Sony A7 as well. I like everything about my D800 except the weight. On paper the Sony A7 looks great.
The bad thing is that with a 36 mp camera you need weight! We all know that to get all of a 36 mp camera you need the best shooting technique and any camera shake should be avoided. For this, a high resolution camera needs weight! I hope that I am wrong but I think the combination of a small lightweight camera and a super high resolution sensor is just wishful thinking, unless you want to carry a tripod all the time!
Hi Max, I will be looking at A7 which is 24.3mp and not the A7R (36mp). The only thing I wish the camera had is in-body stabilisation, just wishful thinking. Will definitely wait for the reviews before I jump the ship. ;-)
Since you all seem to like the idea of mirrorless, I hope they develop them. But, I hope they don’t abandon dSLRs to do it. Just like Nikon (at least. I don’t know about the others) still sells film cameras, they could sell mirrorless and dSLRs simultaneously. Since I shoot FF, I think I’ve got a better chance than those who like APS-C. If they abandon dSLRs, I’ll have to quit shooting when the last available used one stops working.
I really liked them going to a digital medium since it makes shooting, and therefore experimenting, a lot quicker and cheaper, but that’s as far as I can go. I hate trying to shoot handheld with the LCD on the back and really detest the idea of the EVF. But then, I don’t have a cell phone or iWhatever, either.
Olympus is transitioning from 4/3 dSLR to micro-4/3 mirrorless. Now that the EM-1 has on sensor phase detection AF, their legacy high quality dSLR lenses can be used with an adapter, while they continue to develop mirrorless 4/3 lenses.
I don’t see why Nikon or Canon couldn’t do the same. Design a new shorter flange mirrorless body, use a full function adapter for current lenses, and develop an entirely new line of smaller, short flange lenses. Maybe they are waiting for on sensor phase detection technology to equal current SLR speed.
I agree, EVF’s will replace OVF’s. Once EVF’s reach “retina display” resolution (if they haven’t already), fine detail will be indistinguishable between the two. The only thing left is dynamic range. While an EVF may never be able to match the DR of the human eye, it will eventually be good enough that all the other advantages will outweigh this short coming.
4/3 system got marginal market share with barely anyone using it. So people wanting to shoot DSLRs moved over to other systems. Canon and Nikon have a huge market share on the other hand that does want to shoot with optical viewfinders (and it’s not a matter of convincing or “retina displays”, it’s just a topic of viewing the world through TV or Window) so they cannot afford doing the same what Olympus did. They’d loose too much.
Most likely solution to happen is what happened in a film age where rangefinders existed alongside with SLRs – here mirrorless will keep on coexisting with DSLRs.
Great article.
I look forward to when mirror less cameras allow me to mount my FX lenses.
But the mention of EVF’s got me thinking to the possibility of the EVF being removed from the actual camera. There is no technical reason why the EVF cannot be in a separate unit, say a pair of glasses/spectacles connected to the camera via a lead, or the ultimate, via bluetooth or some other wireless data technology.
Nasim you said:
“Simply put, Nikon has a sensor size disadvantage with its CX / Nikon 1 system”
As one who has now abandoned my DX system and moved entirely to CX (albeit with a couple of FX telezooms for the FT-1), I just wish people would stop making comments like this without also emphasising the concomitant advantages – size, cost, portability, increadible focusing accuracy … and so on.
You also say that BIF photography is not possible with mirrorless systems – if I understand you correctly. Again, I believe it is with the Nikon-1 + 70-200 combinations. Nasim, if you have tried the combination of V2+70-200 f/4 since Nikon fixed the continous focus problem (almost!) then I will bow to your greater experience and knowledge. But if not, please give it a go!
Not related, but can you say why Nikon do not consider in camera stabilisation like Olympus? Is it that the external VR technology is just so much better?
Thanks Nasim – great article as always !
KSPGM, all I am saying is that Nikon cannot compete with other players just because of the smaller sensor. CX has its own appeal for enthusiasts and avid birders, but its image quality cannot match an APS-C mirrorless or Nikon’s own DX system. Since most modern sensors are excellent today (regardless of brand), the only differentiating factor is the sensor size. And that’s where the Nikon 1 loses (M43 is also at a disadvantage compared to APS-C).
As for stabilization, it is certainly very advantageous for mirrorless cameras and short focal length lenses. However, once you attach a long lens, in-camera IS will have lots of limitations. Ideally, it would be great if there were two IS systems – one on camera for short lenses, and on the lens for super telephotos :)
dear Sirs,
With mirrorless one want the image sensor to do all tasks: Make excellent image, doing phDAF, contrast AF, give data for exposure evaluating, give data for tracking, and for video. I don’t think these tasks can be done optimaly inside one solution. With DSLR we have different sensor optimised for different tasks. I think that will allways give DSLR a benefit in low light and tracking with PhD AF.
Nasim, there’s another advantage to EVF that you didn’t mention — sensor-based anti-shake will work for both the final image and the viewfinder. Putting the system into the camera rather than every lens will save customers money as well as simplifying the optical design of lenses.
Very good article, though I’d argue one point – are DSLRs really that bulky? Weight and most importantly mechanical complexity of the mirror system – yes. However, physical size of DSLR (and even a 35mm format) evolved over time and won in (among other things) ergonomy. One could argue that it is the optimal size/shape for the function.
I think that pushing the size is just a simplest marketing device for the manufacturers of mirrorless cameras and with it comes the main, correctible disadvantage of current mirrorless cameras – not compatible (needlessly I’d say) with the old lenses.
Removing the mirror but keeping the “old” flange distance is much better solution. First, just for adoption of mirrorless it would do much more than just touting smaller size (which is good for some purposes but keeping old lenses is good for all purposes). More importantly, there would be space left by the mirror system to replace it with new technology. In other words – why just remove when you could replace with some other new functionality in the same volume?
And, as astronomer I’ll add the first idea what to install from my field of study: use freed up space to install some form of active cooling for the sensor. Astronomical sensors live by that kind of staff… Active cooling system of such size could definitely move sensor performance at least for one material generation, possibly two. Instant improvement in quality.
dusanmal, I agree with EVERYTHING you’ve said!
Very well said and difficult to argue against.
“Removing the mirror but keeping the “old” flange distance is much better solution” – than there’s no point really. All you’ll get is a crippled DSLR with no OVF.
The only reason for mirrorless to exist are significant savings in weight and volume. If these are out – you’d be much better of with a proper DSLR.
EVFs are pretty bad in my opinion, produce enormous noise and color shift under dim lighting, especially artificial.
Compact size of mirorless cameras is only good for pancake lenses, they are not suitable for any good zoom or tele lenses. Too small, no grip
So mirorless are good for casual or “leica” style shooting, when you wondering around with one 35/2. Hard to see how they can win a higher segment
Any comparison between cameras of different sized sensors is meaningless. There is a lot of talk about smaller being better but that is certainly not the case for many photographers. There is mention of ergonomics, but you won’t get better than a FF DSLR camera. The great features of having external controls cannot be overstated. Being able to grip the camera and use the buttons we need to without going through menus. Not wishing we had lady hands.
Balance was mentioned. There is no point carrying around a small camera when you are mounting it on a 300mm/2.8 for example. Especially when EVERY review comparing a mirrorless camera to a FF DSLR indicates that the DSLR is superior. They use words like “almost as good”, or acceptable for the size.
I’ll keep my superior camera, with better ergonomics and controls. You keep your “almost as good”.
Mark, you are forgetting one very important thing here – I am mostly comparing APS-C mirrorless with APS-C DSLRs. Full-frame will always be better than APS-C, just like Medium Format is better than full-frame! Still, why wouldn’t you want a mirrorless full-frame DSLR in a couple of years? Imagine having a good, sturdy DSLR-like camera (with good weight balance), but without a mirror and a pentaprism.
I enjoyed the review a lot. Thank you again. However, I never see an important distinction made enough. You hint at it here and others have as well. “Small/Light” merges two things that are not equally valuable to many of us. We want a camera that can give use the controls we need and that we can get a grip on. Since I can’t downsize my hands I find all the current mirrorless cameras including the amazing packages that are the Sony full frames *too* small. It’s my birthday to day and the years are building up into a rather large pile. Soon dragging my D7000 and D600 around will simply be too much. I don’t need small — I need LIGHT.
As for the worry that Nikon and Canon have about killing their DSLRs. If they don’t someone will (and perhaps is).
Also for all those who comment on EVFs being inadequate (or other deficiencies) they need to consider those things which have a very high chance of being fixed by the march of technology and those which don’t. Considering that EVFs will (eventually ) be indistinguishable from OVFs. However, I’m not expecting a 600mm F4 lens to be produced that weights less than 1 or even 2 kgs in my lifetime (or maybe ever). Physics is annoying that way. Maybe when there is no glass in there.
The important thing to me is my hand size. I CAN’T STAND these cameras going smaller! I do NOT want to “tuck” my little finger under the camera and grip with the tip of my thumb.
I used to work for camera stores MANY years ago and we went through this with Olympus’s OM 35mm cameras and then Pentax went smaller too. Nice for SOME people but rarely will a manly-man photographer be seen with one!
I’m hoping that when all cameras are mirrorless, Nikon and Canon will keep their “serious” cameras larger!
An interesting scenario would be the exact opposite:
If digital cameras all had EVF’s would someone be bold enough to bring out digital cameras with mirrors?
Or would this be seen as regression?
;-)
I’d better keep my D600, since it looks like it’ll be a retro design in 10-15 years :) I wonder how the blog-o-sphere would have looked like during the shift from DLR to SLR…
So interesting to see such a popular blogger who happens to live close by. Greetings from Boulder!
“Keep the F mount, but get rid of the mirror: this is most likely what Nikon will end up doing in the future. All current and old Nikkor lenses will continue to work, since the flange distance will be the same. Pro-level FX cameras will still be heavy and bulky for better balance with long lenses, while smaller and lighter FX cameras will also be available for those that worry about weight.”
Yes, Nasim, this seems like the no-brainer path for Nikon to take. I mentioned this a couple weeks back and I´m glad you´ve agreed. Not that I’m very smart, it’s just that it’s too obvious that Nikon can only go that route; if it wants to retain its lens user base.
It’s just a matter of months before Nikon produces some sort of F-mount mirrorless. Mark my words.
One more thing, Nasim: you said that the potential mirrorless Nikon bodies may end up looking boxy, since they would lose the pentaprism housing on the top of the body.
Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3, with nearly a flat top where the pop-up flash is hidden. I can see a Nikon FX mirrorless looking somewhat close to that design. Of course, having the flash in such a low position may be problematic for any lenses longer than primes and may result in shadows with some longer zooms. Can’t have everything, I suppose.
I have no doubt that both Nikon and Canon will find ways to provide an excellent user experience while moving their world-class lenses to mirrorless FF bodies.
Great article. I agree that the most logical way for Nikon to introduce a mirrorless replacement for either FX or DX would be to keep the F-mount. Nikon’s track record of backwards lens compatibility is one of the main reasons why I switched to Nikon when buying my first DSLR.
Also I hope Nikon does not make ergonomic mistakes with its first DX/FX mirrorless cameras. A camera that has a poorly accessible user interface and/or small grip is not of much use for action photography (e.g. BIF).
“However, it simply does not make sense for manufacturers like Nikon and Canon to continue investing into making DSLRs better, when the technology advantage is clearly with mirrorless.”
You’re exactly right, Nasim, and precisely why some folks believe that it’s a “senseless” move for Nikon to offer the Df when they instead could have used their resources to produce a mirrorless FF body.
If Nikon had access to Sony’s SLT technology (translucent mirror), then they could take a DX camera like the D7100, replace the moving mirror with the translucent mirror, replace the OVF with a decent EVF, drop the ‘Live View’ (that really isn’t such and they’ll get the real thing now) and they’d have a path forward for DX users. Adding AVCHD/60p video would up that game even more — we’ll have to wait for that probably until it’s offered on the higher FX cameras first.
Thanks Nasim
Very interesting and stimulating article. This issue must be a little scary for many keen amateurs. I am far from rich and my switch from DX to FX about 3 years ago was very expensive for me (but ultimately worth it for the leap in quality, if not for the state of my neck!)
The possible switch to mirrorless excites me greatly but having bought three FX zooms and three primes (albeit 3 of the 6 on ebay), I feel pretty well committed to Nikon FX. The idea of changing again brings me out in a cold sweat!!
I think Nikon made a major mistake with the CX 1″ format. They possibly also missed a trick in a major way in the 1980’s / 1990’s in sticking with the F-mount and not doing what Canon did with the switch to EOS.
Great article, but I’m not sure I agree with you about Canon being in a better position than Nikon regarding mirror less. Not that Nikon has really nailed it. Far from. But Canon? The first EOSM was widely criticized for having terrible focus issues, but it was the lack of physical controls that really turned me off. That, and the the fact that they didn’t even release the latest M lens in the U.S. It seems like they’ve abandoned mirror less and are focusing on the SL1, their tiny SLR. Too bad. I’d love a retro rangefinder style full frame Canon, or even an APSC version, if it had great autofocus. They should put that new 70D tech into a mirror less!
my view of the better approach…
new mirrorless format (presumably GX) utilizing APS-C size sensor but the slimmed down size like Nikon 1, ditch all the DX only lens and Nikkor 1 lens…but do it nice by offering trade-in to get new lens for the new format/mount. This should be targeting casual consumer for light weight and easy usage.
(possible a converter is created for mating the DX lens with new mount?)
For the Fullframe sensor, keep the body ergonomic, remove the old mirror and the AF module, maintain the flange distance. This is for prosumer and professionals.
I am thinking…thinking…well…will Nikon moves ahead?
Hi Nasim,
Nice article. I was wondering if you could help me out? I stopped photography a few years ago, and am looking to start up again. Im after a mirrorless, but I’m just not sure which one is best for me. Something that can do indoor portraits, but also outdoor and landscaping. Do you have any ideas which would be the best? I have no idea about the mirrorless or where to start with them! Many thanks
Hey Nasim,
Could you please explain in detail about shutter shock and mirror slap? And how do they affect the sharpness? What should be done to mitigate/avoid the effects of vibration due to shutter shock and mirror slap?
Thanks in advance!
A very thought provoking article, especially as I am currently considering the purchase of a Fuji X100s as a carry around camera; I will simultaneously upgrade my D300 to a D610 or D800 (still undecided). The advantages of mirrorless camera design have been obvious to me for quite a while and I have often wondered why the basic SLR design has survived for so long.
These advantages seem obvious for “slow” photography disciplines such as landscape, architectural, commercial and portraiture.
However, I can’t imagine being a sports photographer trying to shoot an F1 race or a tennis match with an electronic viewfinder. By the time one sees the height of the action in an electronic viewfinder the event will already be over in the real world and the opportunity to capture the moment will be lost. Mind you, SLR design was originally criticized for having the actual moment of capture blacked out. Maybe this is why the X100s holds such special appeal to me as a “walk-around” “street” and “family-moments” type camera.
I suspect there will always be a niche market for basic SLR design or even some sort of new TLR or rangefinder design with no blackout. But for the types of photography that I am doing commercially I see very little harm in removing the mirror from the camera.
Can most of use really move quickly enough to see the “height of action” then press the shutter and capture it? Don’t we have to anticipate or blast away in a burst? At some pace of the action no one is going to be fast enough.
While mirrorless and small sensor developments are helping the photography industry as a whole–I use a D4 and D800 with a variety of lenses in a variety of photographic situations and have tried shooting a couple of the new mirrorless units; I see functionality being a HUGE issue for other than ‘snapshots’ at low ISO settings. A new article by Lloyd Chambers addresses similar points that a lot of the new units don’t have functional menu designs and that holding a small, virtually pocket type camera is generally impossible for some picture taking when a DSLR that has some weight and fits your physic better is much more functional and manageable for great shots in more challenging scenarios-the future lies in bringing best designs of both types into a new line of bodies and sensors that preserves the ability to use existing lens.
I agree with all your points and came to the same conclusions a few months ago when I bought a mirrorless camera (Fujifilm X-M1 with a 16-50mm lens).
The APS-C sensor was my main need. That, in my opinion, is the perfect size for most photographers. While I do have a full-frame Nikon D700, I have only used it once in the last few months. I keep the X-M1 in my glove compartment and that easy access has opened up a big new world for me.
Buying that camera was the best choice I’ve made. The quality is there. The flexibility is there. The fun is there, too.
Sometimes I wonder why I keep my D700 and all my lenses.
This mirror less hype is getting tiresome.
Mirrorless is lacking/lagging in every important feature IMO – lagging eye-tiring EVFs with limited DR, long blackouts, stutter when shooting series, motion softness in the viewfinder (yes – try shooting something that it is in continous motion and compare to an OVF). AF-C that can’t keep up with good DSLRS (actually almost useless with CDAF, probably somewhat better with on-chip PDAF), lacking in IQ and DOF control (except FF mirror less which currently has other shortcomings). The information overload in the EVF just distracts from the subject.
Over time SLRs/DSLRs have proven themselves as extremely reliable, despite the mechanical construction.
EVF is not the only problem. Lack of lenses, poor choice of accessories, problems with small sensors (right now the only system that avoided it is Sony’s E-mount), problem with autofocus (which gets crippled far more quickly by low-light level than a DSLRs do), low weight and fiddly bodies make it more difficult to hold camera steadily, most of mirrorless got horrible grips and poor user interface, and so on, and so on….
Thank you for writing this article! I am excited to see what the current mirrorless, DX and FX big manufacturers have in sorted. Who knows, maybe the smaller companies will make a rise. Either way, I will be happy if there are mirrorless D5xxx sized full frame cameras that are compatible with high end fast lenses.
Nasim, i’m sorry but it seems that your enthusiasm for EVF cameras is becoming into bias when writing this article, which, i’m afraid to say isn’t well researched and would be better with a little input from pro photographers who use both DSLR and EVF cameras. I will have to go point by point:
1. Mirror slap: The Mirror slap problem was already solved in the late 60s and right then in 1981 the Canon F-1N had such a smooth mirror mechanism that it was the first pro SLR to come without mirror lock-up. Ask any pro photographer and he/she would tell you there are no issues with mirror slap unless you use a 500mm+ lens, in which case you would need a tripod anyways…
2. “Movement of air”: Your analysis ignores the fact that the mirror is moving BEFORE the shutter opens, so the claim that more air is moved around the sensor (versus a EVF camera which also needs a shutter) is dubious.
3. “Very Fast FPS Speed”: Do you really need more than 11 frames per second? Do you think even 5 frames per second is useful on the current EVF cameras if they aren’t able to accurately track a moving subject?
4. Focus issues:
a. Not everyone experiments focus accuracy issues.
b. Individual lens calibration solves it, if present.
c. You forget that practically all pro DSLR camers of today and most amateur DSLR cameras also offer Live view and contrast focusing while doing live view, so this is not an exclusive advantage of EVF cameras, as it is wrongly implied.
5. “Weight and bulk”. You know, since the Olympus OM-1 of the early seventies, all the other pro-photographers strived to shrink down their pro cameras (example: Pentax LX), thinking that compactness and lightness was important above all. They were wrong. On the late 80s users and manufacturers realized that good ergonomics and high performance was what counted, and you can see the pro cameras being bigger than ever. As a pro who shoots and walks with a Mamiya RB67 when necessary, i can tell you that DSLR bulkness isn’t an issue at all…
6. In low light situations, the EVF becomes almost useless, because the sensor needs to use low shutter speeds to provide the EVF video, and thus the EVF image does not track the action in real-time anymore.
And here is the worst part of all:
7. THERMAL NOISE — to reduce the thermal noise, you want to have the sensor turned OFF as much as possible, and only use it in the instant where you record the image. This goes precisely against what is needed for providing an EVF. So this means that comparatively, the same sensor on an EVF will suffer from more noise than on a DSLR camera. Of course, amateurs think it’s ok because they ignore that the algorithms that are making their cameras give very clean ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 images are actually wiping off all the luminance and chroma detail of the image…
Mind you, some EVF cameras are great, particularly the Fuji ones which also have a great optical viewfinder (ahem, ahem), but to think that they are presently able to replace a current state-of -the-art DSLR for professional purposes is a bit off the mark. And once a EVF camera replaces a pro DSLR for all purposes, i will bet you it won’t be a small and light camera at all.
Flavio,
I will not try and respond to all those points you’ve mentioned, although I do have something to say on all the points. Instead, I’ll just ask you one question. You do realize that professional photographers are.. different. And their needs are different. Their requirements for a camera are different. Right? If you do, you should one vital sentence to your comment – all you said is valid for you, it does not mean it is valid for someone like me. For example, an EVF is useless in low light for fast-moving subjects – for sports photographers, for example. But for someone who photographs stationary subjects or, say, portraits, it is actually more useful than an OVF, because it allows you to see better in the dark. Not to mention that refresh speeds are getting higher. Mirror slap – for my macro work, when I use a 105mm macro lens, I use exposure delay, timer and a remote control to avoid vibrations at shutter speeds slower than 1/80s. Live view with DSLRs is more cumbersome to use than with mirrorless cameras and AF is not as fast. You see? What is good for you might not necessarily be good for me. Or someone else.
Nasim’s article implies that mirrorless is the future for ALL photographers. You state that different photographers have different needs but the article Flavio is responding to doesn’t allow for that. Just as you would prefer a mirrorless for your reasons there are quite a few of us who would not like to switch. I see no reason why Nikon and Canon can’t continue the FF dSLR line in parallel with a new FF mirrorless line. After all, they still manufacture and sell new film SLRs…
Patrick, technology is moving at a very fast pace. While what we see today in the mirrorless world might not be feasible for you and many others, give it a few years and that EVF will be as good, if not better than OVF, particularly when shooting in low light conditions. When speed picks up and manufacturers figure out the way to make contrast+phase detection work as fast as phase detection we see on a DSLR, we will see a global shift of the consumer market. And don’t worry, for folks like you that need the ergonomics of a DSLR and want a larger grip, I am sure manufacturers will offer that option. In fact, when Nikon goes mirrorless (and there are rumors that the next Nikon D2300 will be a mirrorless camera), they will have to keep the same flange distance to keep lenses working. So if the flange distance stays the same, the size of cameras won’t change all that much! So I do not think you should feel threatened by the “small” factor of mirrorless cameras. Imagine a Nikon D800-like camera body, but without a mirror mechanism and hundred of parts that go into it. No secondary mirror, no potential for phase detection issues and lens calibration nightmares. It seriously simplifies the whole process. Check out Roger Cicala’s article where his team disassembled the Sony A7R. The number of screws and components within that camera is impressively low, which makes it super easy and cheap to manufacture that camera. Not only that, but it also significantly simplifies support. When a shutter mechanism is broken on a DSLR, it is often easier to just replace the whole DSLR rather than to try to rebuild it. Too many parts and too much work!
So the way I see the future, is that we will get to the point where EVF will be clearly superior to OVF and manufacturers will start removing mirrors from cameras. If Nikon is successful with their mirrorless SLR-like camera, they will push that into the higher end cameras fairly soon.
You assume too much. My objection to using mirrorless cameras has nothing to do with the quality of EVFs compared to OVFs or body size. It is similar to the reason some photographers didn’t switch to digital. I won’t bother to explain in detail because you probably wouldn’t understand and, even if you did, you wouldn’t agree. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Patrick, forgive me if I made my post sound too arrogant or if I assumed too much about what you were trying to say – it was certainly not my intent, just wanted to keep the conversation healthy.
I understand where you are coming from in regards to people that did not want to switch from film to digital. However, when you look at the market as a whole, you can see that most people out there shoot digital. Those who resisted and stayed with film are a very small niche and their options are shrinking every day, with labs closing down and companies discontinuing their films. And yet the film market still stands, despite the fact that there is practically no new film cameras being released today. In the same way, when I talk about mirrorless technology, I do not mean that it will completely make the DSLR market disappear. DSLRs will probably stay for a very long time, similar to film. I think we will see a shift in the way cameras are made and advanced EVFs will make mirrorless cameras look very attractive compared to DSLRs. Once that technology takes off, I do not see many companies investing a lot of their R&D into making DSLR cameras better. In fact, as of today, most companies are already just releasing mirrorless cameras and staying away from DSLRs: Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and Sony to name a few…
The fortunate thing for me is, at my age, I probably won’t have to deal with the future you paint for too long.
Does anyone have an opinion on the Fuji Film X-MI with the XC 16-50mm lens package. We were thinking of buying this camera as it is a good price @ $649.00 in Canada. The reviews we have read a good but not strong one way or the other. We are coming from a point and shot camera and not experienced with the the SLR’s. Any information you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks.
I have been looking at all the different mirrorless and have purchased an Olympus PL-5 to see if this would be a good move for me. The price at $499 for the body, flash, 2 lenses and a bag was to good to pass up.
I feel better know after watching this review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LqTb4UtH1s
Can I translate and use the images to my website and the Fotografia-DG?
http://www.almaia.com.br
http://www.fotografia-dg.com
Can I?
I just read your article and find it reassuring. I have been having major buyers remorse. A couple weeks ago I was in the market for a new camera. I know very little about photography now, but intend to take some classes to learn the basics. The need came because I have two hyper toddlers and was getting blurry and low image quality shots on my point and shoot. I love the beautiful photojournalistic type shots with the subject up close and blurred background and would love be able to take these of my toddlers. I had narrowed it down to a Nikon 5200 and Sony Nex5T. I finally decided on the NEX and then bought a 35 mm/1.8 lens for it. Then when I tried to enroll in photography classes I was turned away because I didn’t have an SLR with the instructors saying that the class is not intended for people with ‘point and shoots’. And hobbyist photographers I spoke with told me my camera would never take as good photos as an SLR. So now I am out $1k and feeling like I may have made the wrong decision. How would you respond to their comments about my NEX not being able to stand up to a DSLR in terms of image quality and capabilities?
-Sad (but hopeful) mirrorless owner
HI Erika.
That is unfortunate. Id recommend -find a new teacher. As that camera does not have a viewfinder or the traditional layout of buttons it would be difficult to teach/learn on vs a dslr camera setup. I teach lessons myself and understand that most higher end cameras have a button layout for quick and smooth operation without the need to dig into menus. In any case one can be taught how to shoot in manual or semi manual mode on anything. A one on one class might work best for you. Don’t be discouraged and try a different class or instructor.
Hi everyone,
I am new at this so please bare with this question, I have a very specific reason for asking. Does anyone know of a Camera (DSLR) that I can use a long range remote to trigger both stills and turning on/off video? Also is it possible to have remotely operated zoom?
Thanks
Keith
I am suprised that for the cons of a missorless system you did not mention weatherproofing and ruggedness. Maybe they are more rugged now but I still would assume they don’t match the top cameras from canon and nikon(referring to the 1DX and the D4) . Have they gotten better in this regard for those of us that do shoot in the muck so to speak.
The Lumix GH3, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Olympus OM-D E-M5 and Fuji X-T1 are all fully weather sealed and Olympus, Lumix and Fuji offer weather sealed lenses to go with these cameras for a weather sealed experience..
You mention in your article that assembling the mirror mechanism costs a lot of money, but who says so? The mirror technology is a very well proven technology (already in use for 60 years). In the latest, 2013, camera sales in Japan it shows that dSLR cameras create much greater revenue than mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless is still full in development and sales are still lower than expected. Especially in the lower price segment consumers don’t seem prepared to pay the extra money for a mirrorless camera and buy a D3300 or Canon 650D instead. Therefore also the Credit Suisse analyses that only Canon, Nikon and Sony might prevail since they have dSLR’s in their line up.
I have only just found this article and I found it very relevant as I have just purchased a X-E1 + 18-55 zoom for use as a second camera.. It was on offer at a very good price and as I had a Fuji S5 when it was first introduced, the OOC jpegs were an attraction with the X-E1.
The one thing that Fuji, and the other upper end mirrorless manufacturers, need to do before they are going to make serious inroads into the professional portrait/wedding market, is to equip their cameras with TTL flash systems that are the equal of Canon and Nikon.
I have a D700, to which Nikon have never produced a successor, and if the new Fuji X-T1 had a flash system like Nikon CLS I would already have pre-ordered it and be preparing to sell the D700 and my Nikon lenses.
Weight, weight and weight; it’s all about the weight.
I added up the naked weight of most of the Nikon lenses I use and added in a D7100 bare body. Then picked comparative lenses for the Fuji. The nikons are all full frame (the DX lenses aren’t any good) so that bias’ it a bit (ok a lot ).
I get Fuji about 2.4 kgs and the nikon about 4.6 kgs. Pretty close to double. The grams per megapixel number is much closer :) and joking aside, meaningful to me.
Lenses: Nikor 14-24, 24-70, 70-300, 85mm 1.8g, 50mm1.8g, 105 macro
Fuji 10-24 F4,18-55, 50-230, 56mm 1.2, 60mm f2.4.
Great camera. Very live like pictures. I`m about to get one soon, already have D600 but would like something pocket size like for everyday, and The Fuji seems like the right choice for me. Low light performance is also awesome. Probably not as my Nikon but the mobility and size is a factor.
If mirrorless cameras are less complex and less expensive to build and maintain than DSLRs, why are mirrorless bodies so much more expensive than most common non-professional level DSLR bodies? I have been using Sony SLT and it has already got rid of a lot of the limitations from traditional DSLRs. I somehow thought that mirrorless cameras must have superior optical quality / features and that’s what makes them so expensive but if it is just because it is smaller then personally I can hardly justify paying so much more for it. If one argues that it is more expensive to pack the same features and capabilities into a smaller body then doesn’t that just contradict the argument saying a DSLR is more expensive to build? A mirrorless camera with a bright zoom lens can hardly be called compact and the weight of such lens is not exactly light either. Right now I’m trying to find a compelling reason to move on to mirrorless, so help me if you can LOL
DeepFry, the reason for this is relatively high “intro” cost and high R&D costs. Mirrorless cameras are much cheaper to produce than DSLRs – just give it some time and you will see mirrorless prices come down significantly. In fact, they already have!
This was really helpful article, mirrorless is definitely something good to know about as I look into buying a camera.
My husband and I are looking to get a camera and are having a hard time deciding which route to take. Neither of us are photographers but we have invested some time into learning some of the basics and would like something nicer than just our phones to take for vacations and other trips (we’re going to the california coast in a few months, and then out to minnesota and brazil shortly after that.) I love the flexibility that a DSLR allows, but my husband hates how bulky they are, and carrying them around draws attention to yourself and is rather inconvenient while traveling. It seems like mirrorless might be the answer, but what would you recommend? Any mirrorless cameras you think might be good for a couple of beginners? Or would you not even recommend mirrorless? I’d love to hear any feedback you have, thanks!
Allie,
I am selling my Nikon D600 (full frame) AND my 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses and will be buying an Olympus M1 but am still 5% chance of buying the Fuji XT-1.
Why?
Image quality is there but the main reason is 5 lenses, battery charger, 3- batteries, two flashes and the M1 weigh in at apx.6.25 lbs.
So instead you’ll carry 5 more expensive lenses with worse capabilities (equivalence), battery charger, 12 batteries and 2 flashes with far worse capabilities than these Nikon offers to have the ability to take shots somewhat similar (but still worse) to these your current kit offers.
And think that you could have just leave most of these at home more carefully picking your kit for the trip (I can’t believe you really need 5 lenses each time you go out).
Nasim, please do not forget that Nikon has a fourth format and thus a third mount: the S-mount for its range finder system, of which the S3 is wonderful camera. The S3 would be a very nice addition to your reviews. :-)
Pretty cheesy that the Fuji X-T1 comes WITHOUT a USB cable for transferring photos to your computer. Manual says it is available from a third-party supplier, but doesn’t give the specs for it.
For the moment I use a Nikon D700 when I need the best file quality available to me and a Nikon V1 when I expect light to be good and low weight is important.
I have a number of Olympus excellent single focal length lenses among them the superb 75mm lens. For the moment I refrain from using the system due to shutter shock issues with my Pen E P-5 which make results utterly unpredictable with normal shutter speeds. Trying to solve this by setting a shutter delay is pointless with moving subjects- the train has left the station when the camera decides to take the image.
Several mirrorless cameras are reported to have this problem, I find it strange this was not mentioned above. Until this issue is resolved I find the mirrorless concept partly flawed.
Can you help me understand the new Nikon 1v3 versus other DSLRs such as the Canon Rebel T3i. I am just starting out and have been given plenty of pointers and advice but I am still confused which would be best. The types of photos I want are those that can capture something mid-air, or focus close on one thing and blur the background, etc. I want to be able to really creative photos, not just a high quality digital photo. Can the mirrorless cameras really do this type of work?
Obviously there is a huge price difference between these two cameras. I wonder if the Nikon 1v3 solves some of the issues you posed earlier, in terms of autofocus, or sensor.
Any advice would help. Thank you!
Nasim,
It seems to me that as sensor sensitivity keeps getting better and better, we will wind up in a place where only the most discriminating photographers will be able to see any difference between FX, DX, and even 4/3 camera image quality (add smartphones to that after some longer period). The only place for FX to go will be more and more pixels.
Is there some metric (other than number of pixels and depth of field) that will make FX sensors relevant for most photographers in 5 to 10 years?
Sorry my initial reply was not posted in-line with this comment. To restate, the final frontier will be dynamic range, currently at 14.4 EVs, the human eye is at about 24 EVs (when evaluating a scene, such as being able to see the dark rocks and the setting sun simultaneously, or a whole room normally exposed while simultaneously seeing a noontime scene outside a window). This can be solved with better firmware using existing sensors, but to my knowledge no one is doing that.
Also, true optical resolution will be a factor that limits the continued shrinking sensor size.
I think the final frontier will be dynamic range, as sensors get closer to the human visual system.
Is Sony A58 a mirror less system? How does it compare with nikon 3200 or 3100
No, it’s an SLT, sub-type of a DSLR (it’s basically a DSLR with Electronic ViewFinder).
It’s got slightly worse image quality than D3200 or D3100 and an EVF, but it’s EVF is noticeably bigger than an optical viewfinder and it got plenty of nice gadgets, such as a sweep panorama mode, automated framing of the images and others.
No need for apologies, because You have given many technical details about cameras and mainly about Pros cons, but for a beginner it is somewhat difficult to some technical concepts. I need to buy a mirror less camera for self use, because photography is hobby. I like participate some photo contexts. Help me in giving some camera suggestions on it.
My email id : [email protected]
I shoot a D600 and can highly recommend an Olympus E-PL5. http://www.getolympus.com
You can pickup the body and lens at B&H for $599 USD.
Here is a link to my E-PL5 gallery http://johnny.smugmug.com/Nature/Wildflowers-2014/38159812_SR8THV
Your argument is very partial and it is sickening to me as a photographer and a student of the field. I refused to jump on the digital bandwagon and continue to use it as minimal as possible. I am still a photographer that feels the art is in previsualization and the darkroom. So, I still use my darkroom with 3 enlargers and that won’t change unless film is completely phased out. This continuous “advancement” on technology, especially with photography, is a movement that needs to slow down or end. It took quite a while to get the darkroom perfected and now you want to completely change my field? I’ll stick with tradition and what I learned from and about the greats at my photography school. I’m sorry but the Master’s of Photography would completely disagree with you and I doubt Ansel Adam’s would get the results he was looking for with today’s technology as it’s more about technology than actual skill anymore. So, I’ll stick to tradition and ask that you technology geeks keep all options as they are all art forms. Progressive is one thing but don’t kill the art of the past. It’s nice to have an alternative but don’t completely remove the past art forms. I will stick with all my dSLR’s and continue to use them until the day they die. If my passion does get phased out, I’ll use basic cameras for references for my paintings as I don’t need to worry about that technology phasing out in the near future. Hopefully, I’ll be dead before I can no longer get a dSLR but I don’t see that happening. So, I’ll just keep using my art skills to impress myself and my fears since all you technology geeks need technology to do it for you. I dare you to try and match my skills in art as I doubt it is even possible for one of you tech douche’s to go into you actual artistic intellectual side and create something!
Ian dumbfounded by your flippant disregard for “modern” technology and that it is taking away from “your” art. However, I agree that art is a “skill” that is learned and at the same time discovered. But, what amazes me is that you say that “I’ll be dead before I can no longer get a dSLR” and that shows your age and lack of experience. Do you realize that Ansel Adam’s didn’t even know WHAT digital meant? The concept of “digital;” didn’t even exist. Maybe what you meant to say is that when you could no longer get a FILM camera you would no longer do your art? As a former photo journalist that grew up with Nikon Fs and F2s it blows my mind that people and technology is (will be???) the end of film and real SLRs. If you want to do real art, go get a single lens reflex, prior to a Nikon FM and then you will be an artist. I can appreciate you taking photos and then transferring them to the painting arts, but again, try doing that with a NON-digital camera and I’ll be impressed. How is a dSLR and different than the modern mirrors cameras except for the lack of mirrors? It’s no different than a Commodore 64 and a MAC Air. They’re still both digital machines. One just happens to be more advanced. If you want to be a real artist, take some Kodachrome and go shoot a sunset in “real” life, and then paint it. Or better yet, go get some glass with silver on it and shoot that sunset like Ansel would’ve done.
Hi Nassim,
I just started reading your photography tips for beginners and found it very informative, concise and useful. I’m upgrading from point and shoot to practice the 3 pillars of photography. For a beginner, which would make a better camera – M43 or DLSRs. For DLSRs, I’m looking at Nikon D3300. What would be a good M43 camera for a beginner? l Iean towards landscape, street and macro photography.My primary concerns on DLSR would be the weight, size and bulk since I’m a mum who travels with a kid.
I’m new to all of this and trying to figure out what is the best camera for me. I was looking at the Nikon D5300 and now wondering if I should perhaps go with the Nikon J4 or another mirrorless camera … Right now I’m just an amateur photographer who mostly takes photos of landscape and architectural buildings; but, will be taking photos for church events in the future… do you have any suggestions and/or recommendations on the best cameras out on the market at this time under $1000? Thank you.
Although a lot of good points were mentioned, there are some mistakes and not mentioned things.
First of all shorter focal distance would make smaller only wide lenses. All telephoto would remain the same. Actually it would be very easy to redesign current portrait and tele lenses for mirrorless – just the mount would change including focal distance compensation.
Then – short focal distance in correlation with sensor technology causes serious problems for wide lenses. Guys, who use rangefinder lenses on Sony A7(r) already noticed hard vignetting and colour shifts in the periphery of the frame, which was not present on film.
For the idea of keeping F mount, but getting rid of the mirror – Pentax did this in K-01. Total failure.
For the APS-C size sensor, Sony NEX A6000 pretty much can kill all DSLRs.
It’s much lighter, faster and can come out better quality pictures. It only costs $800 with kits lens.
For the full frame size sensor Sony A7 series is the first generation. It will take some time to be more capable to compete with D800/D810 and 5DM3. However, I do agree eventually it will be there after a couple of iterations.
Nikon and Canon now did not put big efforts on the mirrorless cameras. They will eventually pay to price for this(by losing more market shares). Just look at B&H sales activities. Sony A6000 is often out of stock for the black color. It is stealing market shares from DSLRs with APS-C sensor in a big way.
Nikon and Canon try to ignore the mirrorless market. Eventually, the market will ignore them.
“For the APS-C size sensor, Sony NEX A6000 pretty much can kill all DSLRs.” – Nope, not even close. Not now, not when it was released. Read some reviews or something (just not by mirrorless propagandists, but rather objective reviews).
People have been slapping each other with (very light) handbags for years now with the mirrorless versus DSLR arguments. I think that the weight of a DSLR is actually nice to balance quality lenses. The sound of the shutter is one sound I love (and so has any compact or mirrorless camera users who have picked up my DSLR).
Here are my thoughts… only my thoughts…
I have both mirrorless and premium compact cameras. I use them for some travel work and non working events, but mainly carry them along with a DSLR. The list of mirrorless “advantages” in the above article have me scratching my head as to why on earth someone who is that easily put off would want a career in photography.
1. Size and bulk? No problem for many generations of photographers… DSLR’s are small in comparison to older formats. I go with quality and feel, not spec measurements. For work I use the DSLR and I enjoy the way it handles – size has a lot to do with that.
2. Weight? I have no difficulty in lifting and carrying a DSLR with a lens. A bag with a few lenses poses no problems. Maybe, less time in the gym to rebuild muscle, and more time doing something with a bit of weight, would lead to more healthier and happier photographers ;-)
3. Mirror Slap? Not a problem at all with the new Nikon D810. There is something about the sound of a traditional DSLR that makes the electronic shutter brigade swoon when they hear it ;-) I predict that some manufacturer will add a fake mirror sound as a menu feature to their mirrorless camera – some smartphone apps do.
4. Movement of Air? Good luck with preventing air movement in any camera with interchangeable lenses. I have both DSLR and mirrorless, and I have to clean the DSLR much less often than the mirrorless.
5. Frame Speed Limitation? 10 or 12 fps shutter speed is enough for me and anyone I know. I must admit, I don’t know anyone working on particle accelerators, but they probably don’t use off the shelf mirrorless cameras to freeze electrons :)
6. Expensive to Build and Support? Like anything of top quality. One paid job pays for a new top end DSLR. If you can’t afford one, you may not be looking at the right end of the market.
7. No Live Preview? My new Nikon D810 has perfectly good LV (live view) functionality.
8. Secondary Mirror and Phase Detection Accuracy? I’ve owned and used lots of DSLR cameras over the years and never had that as an issue. But then again, I buy quality. Every camera, including mirrorless systems, have a potential for some critical electronic or other issue. Let’s be fair.
9. Phase Detection and Lens Calibration Issues? You can get your lens calibrated if they aren’t to your exact specifications. The sharpness of my DSLR setup would match or beat that of the latest mirrorless systems I have used for far anyway. Just saying.
10. Electronic Viewfinder? No thanks, not if I can get away without it. It’s not that I don’t think that tiny little screen is cute, it’s just that I prefer the optical viewfinder. I get all the information I need in the viewfinder, running along the bottom. I’m one of the old school photographers who want to see the scene I am shooting more than any fighter jet-style HUD display. Sure you can probably browse the web on future Electronic Viewfinders, but I’ll still be looking at what I’m shooting.
11. Digital Zoom? I have it on the display of the D810. I’d be more comfortable looking at it there than the the EVF. But if it is such a big deal, any manufacturer could add an optional EVF to a DSLR in the future. Mirrorless systems add stick on EVF’s, don’t they? I don’t see too much demand at present for it though.
12. Eye Damage? Erm… bottom of a small barrel right there… You don’t need a camera to damage your eyesight looking at the sun. Just don’t look at the sun.
Now, to end… I have both systems. Sometimes a list of differences doesn’t make up a compelling list of advantages. Mirrorless is an exciting new technology that I am looking forward to see evolve. I’ll be buying new mirrorless systems soon no doubt but, judging by the underwhelming sales figures for mirrorless in 2012/2013, I’m sure I won’t be the last person to see merit in the DSLR too.
Hi JonVon, the point of mirror less is that excellent image quality now comes with a lower price tag, and becomes more accessible to people on a limited budget. OK I also would love to own a D810 with its many plus points, but this Sony A6000 provides a very close and affordable alternative – especially with multiple solutions in lo-light situations, which my high-end DSLR cannot compete with.
Watch this space – will take time – but is, I believe, inevitable.
As of now, aren’t mirrorless systems more expensive? Here in the UAE, a competent mirrorless from Sony or Fuji costs more than a similar DSLR. It’s not attracting anyone except the wealthy.
A6000 got an image quality close to entry-level DX Nikon, which is much, much cheaper yet offers slightly better image (especially in low-light situations). You can’t compare it to D810 as it’s a completely different league, far above what A6000 offers.
A6000 advantage is in weight, but that said – D3xxx series DSLRs are light enough already and A6000 is not pocketable, especially with a proper zoom lens, so the advantage isn’t as large as you and other mirrorless propagandists suggest. If someone wants to go light – he should pick up one of large sensor compacts. Image quality will be good enough while few of them fit the jeans pocket and don’t have all of the problems inherited from interchangeable lenses (no issues with dust inside, no exposing fragile and expensive sensor, no cleaning, etc.).
thanks for your input. Helpful.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the wealth of information. I am a mom of 4 very active kids and am trying to decide where to go after the point and shoot cameras. I am really a louse photographer but am willing to study. As I was researching and different options, I was reviewing mostly DSLR cameras. But I came across article about the mirror less cameras. I saw a review of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 and was so excited until I learned this type of camera is not good for fast shooting like that required in kid sports. Are there any non DSLR cameras you would recommend? Thanks!
Try the Sony Alpha 6000 or the next version 7000, if you can wait. Being an experienced user of Canon full frame and APSC cameras (particularly for wildlife), and having recently purchased this Sony model as a secondary support camera whilst out on a shoot, the performance is impressive and can match the image quality of my 2 DSLRs, except in very critical shots.
I can see exactly what the author here is predicting, and believe he has some valid points about the future of DSLRs, although it will take time to develop.
I believe the biggest issue for Professionals, and enthusiasts, is right now the lack of suitable “wildlife” lenses. However, for most other types of photography my A6000 provides a great solution.
“Are there any non DSLR cameras you would recommend” – Yes, plenty. Think of Sony RX100 series (there are 3 generations, all great), Nikon Coolpix A, Canon G7x, Ricoh GR, or beautiful, but larger Fuji X100 series.
Kathy,
Curious as to where you saw this review?
I suggest you watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU
Nasim,
I have always bookmarked your website as a resource for the most helpful and thoughtful photography advice. I do have a question for you. I have an old Carl Zeiss Rolle mount 85 1.4 HFT lens that I am excited to use. I shoot with a D4 and a backup D600. I have purchased the fotodiox adapter for the nikon mount and awaiting its arrival.I had thought about purchasing a mirrorless camera so that I could use this lens but the salesman told me that the mirrorless camera would make my 85 1.4 a 125 mm lens with loss of 1 stop.
Does this sound accurate to you? I really want to use this lens in its full glory!
Thanks,
Julie
I have a question. I heard that the DSLR lenses have a limited no. of shots. For instance, if a lens is exposed for 1000 shots, from the 1001th shot, the lens is said to perform little poorer (in terms of crispness of image, image quality, etc). Is this true ??
I want to buy a DSLR (I am tired of using mirrorless) and the above point is really troubling? Can you pl. clarify??
By the way, a very nice informative article.
I’m not really sure how that works. Put simply, a lens is a plastic/metal tube with glass pieces inside that do a lot of hoopla with light to make it fall on the sensor and produce an image. The pieces that are not stuck together never touch each other, and no air goes into the lens unless it’s broken.
And if for some reason the lenses DO somehow suffer from wear and tear, this problem would affect mirrorless lenses as well (well, pretty much ANY lens for that matter)
It’s totally false.
Thanks for the brief information . I’m planning to buy DSLR or mirrorless camera . My budget is 40k (Indian rupees ) I’m aware of canon eos 1100 D is there any better camera (mirroless or dslr) in canon or nikon ? Which should be my first preference?
Think of Nikon D3200 – much, much better image quality than EOS 1100D and mirrorless cameras in similar price point.
Hi Nasim,
I was reading thorugh your article as I am planning to buy a camera. I have bought a Nikon D7000 with 18-105 VR AFS Kit lens, and after reading this article I started thinking of exchanging it with the Nikon Nikon 1 V1 Mirrorless with Kit 10-30mm+30-110mm White (free SB-N5 flash). Will this be a good option?
The price is also quite lower than the D7000.
Please advise as my final return date is tomorrow and after that i will not be able to return it. Also if you want you can suggest me any other option as well in the comparable price range, i.e. below $850 around.
Rahul,
I do not know where you are located but I would go this route an Olympus OM10 and the 14-42 is on sale for $749.99 which is a great deal and a far better option than the Nikon V1.
http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/omd/e-m10.html
The only experience that I have with mirrorless is with point-n-shoot cameras… Canon… and I was VERY displeased in very low light situations where a flash was simply essential. I would look into the viewfinder and it would blind me to the point where I could not see for several seconds afterward, until my eye re-adjusted to the dark.
And then it would happen all over again… over and over! :-P
Point and shoot cameras are not mirrorless. Mirrorless is a specific type of cameras with interchangeable lenses. And point and shoot cameras are very varied, some of them can beat even the best DSLRs (eg. RX1 which has a full frame sensor and one of the best 35mm ever created), and now with the new wave of large sensor compacts coming in (APS-C, m4/3 and 1″ sensors) they become much better option than mirrorless unless you’re into collecting lenses.
LOL Yes… we KNOW what “mirrorless” is as a class of camera! Duh! ;-P However… I’m stating that the closest that I’ve come to it is in the similarity of the FACT that the compact/superzoom that I was using is mirror-less, with an electronic viewfinder. I was curious whether mirrorless cameras EFFECTIVELY adjusted for both bright and very dark situations, that I mention above, so that one’s eyes don’t get freaked out??
I don’t think mirrorless FullFrame is here yet. The sony’s A7 series is way too big when you put a 2.8 lens, or something with good gathering capability. However, what I think is most interesting is the m4/3. Eventually as sensor tech gets better, it will be interesting to see how a m4/3 will fare against FF in low light. The more the sensor tech gets better, the FF will probably be able to have much less noise in low light conditions when shooting ISO 6400 (granted, it’s very much usable, even 10k is, but with newer tech it will have corresponding noise level of what a ISO 800 has today on such conditions). The FF will be better, but a m4/3 will probably do what the current FF does in a low light, and I think that’s when m4/3 will become a serious companion/alternative as you could carry one around, and be able to take shots inside a bar without flash.
It needs couple of stops less noise and m4/3 is good to go. We’re looking 1-2 year of sensor tech, not far away. (Samsung needs to step in. NX1 is brilliant, they just need to make one in size of oly E-M10. Also must have viewfinder, they current smallies don’t have viewfinders..)
Great post. I recently posted a quiz about the whole mirrorless vs dslr debate. Check it out here. http://randolphimages.com/take-the-quiz-mirrorless-or-dslr/ I also have a video on there that explains that there is really only one decision you have to make when deciding between the two. Makes things a lot easier!
In the long run, optical viewfinders are doomed. There’s really no question.
Here, free for the taking, is a development roadmap for a smart DSLR manufacturer.
1: Ditch the optical viewfinder for EVF even in your top of the line cameras, but leave the body the same.
2: on your top-of-the-line camera, use the newly-opened space inside the body to allow the sensor to move forward and back, to tilt and to swivel.
3: Introduce a line of short-flange lenses. The camera could use them automatically.
4: With short-flange lenses, add software support for view-camera style back movements controlled from the back touch-screen. Allow the user to specify the pairs of lines should be held parallel despite camera movements, or to identify three points in the scene all of which should be held in focus. (other view-camera modes could be automated as well)
You’d have the world’s first real hand-holdable view camera, and you’d have a smooth migration path for users who might buy later, short-flange bodies for the newer lenses.
You’re welcome.
Good article. What about heat issue with the sensor working all the time when turned on?
Shuts the camera down when shooting video an the a7’s not something you want if you are shooting a professional assignment.
OK. It was a pleasure to read this. Make me think about my future choices. Thanks.
Typical internet twaddle. Fact and “Opinion presented as fact” mixed together and indistinguishable.
And cherry-picking too. You did not exactly go our of your way to list the ADVANTAGES of a traditional DSLR and the DISADVANTAGES of mirrorless.
Would you like to list both of those? I’m interested.
I don’t see anything in a DSLR that a mirrorless camera won’t eventually be able to do. I just don’t see that any of them have managed to get there.
Just my 2c here. At my age, I have pretty much gotten out of the serious amateur photography field. But I still make beautiful things for the interior design field, and while producing custom made window treatments, padded/upholstered headboards, I still know the value of beauty. I still have and use a middle of the road Sony DSLR that I picked up last year. Yes, I’ve always been a Minolta sort of person, ever since my first SRT-101.
But here’s my main point. If composition, structure, and quality of pictures are so important, then why should the very equipment one uses to achieve this thing of beauty be so Butt-Ugly? Why must otherwise brilliant producers go out of their way to make consumer goods that totally violate the very equation for beauty: the Golden Ration? http://www.intmath.com/numbers/math-of-beauty.php . Just look at those mirrorless cameras, practically any one of them , including the one above in the comparison picture. It’s hideous looking because it violates the Golden Ration. Even the above Nikon DSLR violates this equation, and I would not spend good money in order to own/use something as ugly as that.
It appears that the only folks who “Get It” are the ones over at Samsung. Their mirrorless flagship is pleasing to the eye. I could learn to love to use it. Most DSLRs have evolved to the point where they are generally aesthetically pleasing to the eye. When you first look at them they look like nature made them. They fit right in. But these,..these,….these rectangular boxes that pass themselves off as creators of beauty, are themselves ugly ducklings.
I know, I know, who gives a damn about how the camera looks, right? Only the final result matters, eh? Well, if an artist is going to produce a great work of art, shouldn’t that very artist be using something that practices what it preaches? Consumers almost always vote with their pocketbook. But Mr. Mansurov, along with the rest of the ‘so called’ elite photo crowd, should be hammering the camera makers to produce something that the photographer can grasp, and subconsciously relax because they know they are using a work of art in and of itself.
My Sony A7 was more prone to dust than my D810. The D810 took more than 4000 pictures without needing to manually clean the sensor, the last shot was taken at f16 and show very clear image! But with the A7, I have to clean it’s sensor daily! If you shoot indoor or shooting at large aperture there is no problem at all! But if you shoot outdoor landscape, where wind can blow dust to any direction at any time, the dusty sensor will make post-processing a pain, or eventually ruin your images!
>>Now imagine this process at 15-20 times per second
it’s perfectly possible, plus why would you want it to be that fast, why not just buy a camcorder instead.
there are dslr’s that have a 1/4000s shutter speed.
Hi Nasim
Your article is well written but I find it a bit biased in favour of mirrorless . I use both systems .
1. As of this stage of development even with on sensor phase detect sensor OSPDAF ,mirrorless is still unable to match the focusing speed and tracking ability of DSLR and focusing ability at low light is subpar. It is improving I know but not quite there yet .
2. Another problem is lens collection is inadequate and priced expensively . The short flange distance make designing lens that are sharp enough across the frame more challenging .
It may end up as a bigger lens ,negating the size advantage
3. Mirrorless is small only when a small lens is used . With longer lens the size advantages disappeared and the camera would become unbalanced . To put things into perspective mirrorless can be as big or as small depending on the lens chosen. I recall an an article been written by you on the myth of small size of mirrorless
4.The potential misalignment of secondary mirror in DSLR is probably overblown . SLR and DSLR have a long history and surely manufacturers know how to tackle the problem in a mass manufacturing operation . It does happen but is not frequent and can be corrected in warranty
5. As you mentioned despite simpler construction mirrorless is not priced cheaply due to research and startup costs Not to mention the expensive lens .
terrylau
“a BIT biassed in favour of mirrorless”
Understatement of the year!!
This is all very technical for a beginner like me. I wish I had read this article last year when I bought my new camera which is a Nikon D3200 which I bought with the kit lens and a 70-300 zoom and then added a 50mm lens and just now am looking at a 85mm lens.
I was into photography back some 30 years ago and still have my Canon AE-1 and always thought I would go sell it and get some money out of it. Just pulled it out a few years ago finding that no one wants it anymore. Is this what you are saying is going to happen to my Nikon D3200 (along with all the expense of these lenses) that I just purchased??? That I just wasted all my money? I unfortunately do not have the luxury to spend a few thousand every so many years on new equipment. Thanks for your response.
You will be fine. Go out and concentrate on making good images.
I have a 5D MK III and a Sony a6000. I like them both for different reasons. I will not be giving up a much better lens selection with my MK III to totally go mirrorless. I shoot location and as well as studio and this is another place where the 5D MK III shines. I was going to use both cameras and quickly found out that the a6000 was too dark in the viewfinder and you can’t see what you are shooting with an EVF until it briefly finds focus. This is undesirable for studio work and shooting weddings in dark churches without cranking the ISO way up. The a6000 does have a nice range ISO wise but still not as clean as my MK III.
Now for outdoor shooting the a6000 shines. Fast auto focus, love the face tracking feature, and 11 frames a second shooting, even though only maybe half will be in focus shooting a moving subj. The buffer is also overlooked on the a6000 which is small compared to my MK III even though it shoots more frames per second. Battery life is too short though and it would take a lot of batteries to shoot a wedding. I also have a hard time justifying paying more for a 70-200 f4 lens than I did for my 2.8 IS L lens. That makes no sense. The lack of more fast lens is also undesirable as well.
I will use my DSLR (which I have no problem with walking around with a 70-200 lens all day) for the majority of my shooting and the a6000 for travel, outdoor shoots, and locations with good lighting. People still use medium format cameras which are really big and heavy and don’t think those are going away for serious shooters. I love my DSLR and my mirrorless and think they both can exist together for different purposes.
The lack of dual card slots is one other drawback to my a6000.
Hello All,
I am beginner in photography and confused to buy either an intermediate DSLR or mirrorless camera. Could anyone suggest which type of intermediate camera should I go for and purchase.
Looking forward for your reply,
Best Regards,
Rishi Soni.
Try a few in your hands and see what feels right. It doesn’t matter about cool features if you aren’t comfortable with it.
The following is a guide to help you. Larger sensor size generally is associated with better image quality, higher cost, more weight due to bigger lenses which in turn adds to weight and cost. Smaller sensor size is associated with less of all the above qualities. Lower cost and weight increases affordability and portability with a loss in image quality. So you have a trade off which you have to decide for yourself. You can look up images taken with smaller and larger sensor cameras or mirrorless and SLR cameras on flickr to assess image quality. Mirrorless is new and developing technology while DSLR is well developed technology. Most mirrorless cameras have a micro 4/3 sensor although there are APS-C and full frame mirrorless cameras as well. As I understand the main advantage of mirrorless is the ability to shoot higher frames per second giving them the edge in shooting fast action BUT the number of frames which you can capture in one burst depends on the buffer size of the camera. Sony A7Rii buffer fills up after 24 shots in RAW and 21 shots in RAW+JPEG @ 42 MP resolution. Its speed is 5 fps which is lower than on Nikon D810, so you get only 4 secs of action. According to SONY website recordable images are only 9 in RAW. Nikon’s D810 can store more shots before buffer fills up. So we don’t see any advantage due to mirror absence. Mirrorless cameras batteries run out faster than DSLRs and you have to carry more batteries. EVF is difficult to focus while shooting fast action. So mirrorless needs to improve more. You have to decide if those additional features of mirrorless are important to YOU. So you have to spend time in thinking deeply before succumbing to marketing hype.
Focus Problem solved. DSLRs cameras are dead.
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/25541/42446651.3c4/0_9cbf6_ec02227d_orig.jpg
So, why did you just order Nikon d500?
Because there is currently nothing else like it, especially if you are inclvested in long high quality lenses.
Exactly.
Wow, did not realize how slow the Sony A7’s (and other mirrorless) are to start up. With the pitiful battery life you will need to have the camera off, more than 1.5sec to startup will mean lost shots, yuck. Meanwhile I can leave my DSLR on all day and not even think about batteries.
Canon and Nikon are still occupying the camera markets over 70% and 56% by canon. Dead? Give me a break. Also all sports photographers are usually use canon or nikon camera with huge telephoto lenses.
I too just purchased the d500….for the fact that I’m pretty heavily invested in tele glass.
However, I love my fuji x100t as a pocket camera, so much so as I am really considering the fuji x Pro 2 for my portrait & travel camera. Before this, I was planning to get a d810….Will wait for more formal reviews.
Nasim…
Great article…as usual.
A little while back you wrote that due to some nagging injuries, you have decided to downsize from the D4 & D810 to the D750 because of its lightweight design and comparable image quality.
How close are you to using a mirrorless system as your go to camera?
Fine article Nasim!
Obviously I am not an analist, but how I see it, is that further development of mirorless is not going to be super fast.
I think Sony c.s. will develop very gradually, forcing photographers to keep updating their gear (= much more sales).
Thanks Nasim, very nice article! I think many of us share the same thought but you are sumarry all.
The catch for us the users, is which system we get into as the loyalist, especially the lense system at current transitional era.
Being a longtime nikon user, I and other nikon users have bunch of nikon fx lenses ( as do canon users), and for the travel/everyday carry purpose, we cannot resist the lucrative of mirrorless camera for light, small travel. I actually bought fuji x-e2 with 23mm f1.4 lén, as do many others.
So we end up own two systems. I finally sold fuji, as I subjectively prefer nikon color redition and cannot live ưith slow AF of X-e2. But most of users keeping both system, which i found how hassle it is going back and forth with the two, and dsrl still more realiable than mirrorless in most situation.
I almost intended to sell all my nikon camera and lenses since the realease of sony a7r ii with some very nice zeiss battis and loxia lêns, but there still smt prevent me to do so and convince me to wait for more.
As you already said in the article, in few years, mirorless may catch up dsrl, having the same thought, I trying to live with my bulky dsrl for few years from now, before switch over to a mature mirorless system, we do not know if they wil be a sony, nikon, canon, fuji or someone else. The problem is not the camera body but the lens we invested, you are right, if nikon or canon can develope the full frame mirrorless letting us to keep current lén system, they will surely have our vote.
Bang on! I use a Nikon APS-c. Camera. I will be in the market for a upgrade in my camera in the next year or so. I have quite a bit of DX lenses and if Nikon came out with a Mirrorless camera that had a lot of the features that Sony has it would be a huge contender for me. I think there are a lot of DX shooters out there in the same boat. I am neither pro nor negative on mirrorless. I just would look at what is most useful for my needs without breaking the bank. I do this for a hobby so cost is very important. I enjoy how my DSLR feels and works for me right now. I started with a film SLR so it was a natural progression for me but I am not against change either. Well written and we’ll explained. I agree with so very many of your points. I think there is a large silent majority who enjoy photography and will go with whatever serves their purpose best but if that can by done by still using existing kit… Now that would be great.
Unless Nikon charges you upwards of $2500 it would not be profitable for them for the reasons you stated…everybody wants to use their slow DX lenses on it before they buy one of their faster $1700 APSC lenses.You are in better shape by “divorcing” yourself from the APSC DSLR idea and buy Nikon FF if you can’t let go of Nikon , then you get yourself the mirrorless APSC system of your liking. Just imagine …having two girlfriends at the same time ,both perfect but different in character…paradise !
Ah, this article is a godsend, thank you Nasim! It really speaks to me as I’m currently on the fence about this very issue, trying to step up from high-end compacts to a mid-range mirrorless or DSLR camera. Frankly, the reviews you’ve posted recently about the Fuji X-Ts and Sony Alphas are really very convincing, so much so that I tend to lean towards mirrorless. RE: battery life, for someone coming from the compact world this is a familiar issue… I got into the habit of carrying a spare battery, and that solves the problem for me. This is something I’m willing to compromise on. As for a narrower range of lenses, I’m thinking that one doesn’t need too many lenses anyway. But maybe that’s just me, someone with different photography needs might consider a wider range of lenses critical. I don’t mind if there are only 4 or 5 lenses to choose from, as long as they are top notch. I just wouldn’t want to feel like I could have gotten a better lens (and consequently better img quality) had I picked a Nikon/Canon DSLR.
The main issue I have with mirrorless is the small size of the bodies relative to my hands. I can palm a basketball. This makes the “tiny” cameras get lost in my hand and my fingers hit too many buttons at once.
I do use a Nikon1 J5 when I want/need to be inconspicuous in public places and a J3 for underwater photography in a housing that is, of course, larger. The DSLRs (D600, D750) are my primary above water cameras though I really prefer the size and comfort of the D810 (can’t justify the added costs for what I like to shoot).
I am fairly certain that there will be higher quality and technologically advanced mirrorless DX and FF cameras in a few years and my aging arms might like the any weight savings. However, unless the ergonomics are there for my hand size, I guess I will be with the DSLRs for awhile longer.
Forgot to add – great analysis and timely. Also agree that battery life is a real problem an a long day of shooting where i might take 1000 or more shots.
As you say, the original mirrorless advantage was weight. Now the full frame is maturing, the weight advantage is gone, other than a few grammes on the body.
The lack of high quality lenses for DSLR APS-C bodies is a very important issue you are very wise to bring up. Nikon have sat on the fence for far too long. Fortunately Sigma have been developing high quality lenses for the APS-C for the past few years, so anyone already invested in Nikon (yes, and Canon) APS-C need not fear. Nikon will not want to lose potential lens sales in this way, so you can be sure that they will protect the sale of both lenses, and new bodies, by responding with better glass sooner, rather than later.
I have two Sigma lenses, one is a dual purpose (full AND cropped sensor) 105mm OS Macro, and I can remember squealing with delight at the detail it revealed on my D5200. I can’t wait for slightly better weather, and the return of the insects, to see how it behaves on my D5500. That it becomes a 155mm macro on an APS-C is a bonus to me, and the high iso capability of the D5500 affords high shutter speeds while maintaining a decent aperture while targeting moving subjects.
The one thing that really does concern me about mirrorless is battery durability. I watched a silly but still interesting you tube clip showing how mirrorless can die suddenly on you. If it is to be believed, the batteries give you around 200 shots, while my D5500 gives 800 plus. Now, that is not to say that I would use 800 plus in a single trip or area, but let us not forget, there is a lot of reviewing images already shot, and that takes a heft of batter power too. I would guess, arbitrarily, half the battery by the time you are done.
Using a mirrorless the way I use my D5500, I would be in trouble around the 100 shots area, and be looking to swap out the battery. Not good. As with anything else in technology, things are always in flux, I imagine Nikon will evolve better glass for APS-C sometime soon, and the arrival of the D500 kind of reinforces that theory. Sigma, and other independents, will not sit still, and we’ll see them bringing updates and new lenses over time, same as it ever was. I have three ‘off brand’ lenses for my Nikon and love using them all so don’t be afraid to dive into that pool.
To give us a cheeky late winter grin, here’s that video about mirrorless battery power…
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/reasons-not-to-dump-dslrs/NDU5MDk0MTc2
I sold my Nikon D90 and lenses (3 Nikkors + 2 Sigmas) and got Fuji XT1. If you only new how_much_ lighter XT1 body and Fuji primes are… It feels right in hand, sharpness is amazing, AF is OK as long as your subject is not fast moving. Battery life is not a big deal. I just keep a 2nd battery which is twice as little as Nikon’s batter anyway.
Speaking of lenses, Fuji lenses are simply amazing! Most are sharp, corner to corner, even wide open. Fuji primes are fast: 1.4 and 1.2 are the norm, and unlike Sigma-s the widest aperture doesn’t sacrifice corner sharpness. Finally Fuji developed wide selection of primes and zooms. I got really excited to use their primes because of even smaller weight and outstanding performance and got 23, 35, 56, 90. Also I got 10-24 ultra wide.
I am happy that I ditched Nikon and I appreciate Fuji lenses even more than the camera!
I feel that Nikon completely deserves this because they kept neglecting DX for too long. I didn’t want upgrade to FX because of cost of Nikon’s glass and the weight. But when I looked Fuji’s viewfinder, I screamed, because it is so much better than OVF!
Unless you need your Nikon for sports or wildlife, please try Fuji! There will be few limitations, but also you will find tremendous power and even more potential in X system!
Yeah, what this article misses is that there actually *are* tons of good DX lenses out there — just very few are made by Nikon/Canon.
Putting together a good DX lens kit with reasonably fast lenses isn’t that hard.
Here are some examples:
Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 — or Tokina 14-20 f/2.0 — or Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS — or Sigma 18-35 f/2.0
Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS
Or there are numerous good, modern primes (although very few are DX specific) like the Sigma 20, 24, 35, 50, 85mm f/1.4 lineup and the Nikon 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85mm f/1.8 lineup that cover a decent variety of focal lengths.
Not all these lenses are perfect “FX comparables” obviously, but the DX lens landscape is not nearly as bleak as it’s often made out to be.
Hi Bob,
This is a huge point. I shoot pets professionally and when I use a Nikon DSLR it is APC (D7100’s now, D500’s later this year. So what lenses do I use:
Tokina 11-16 (maybe 10%)
Sigma 18-35 roughly 40%
Sigma 50mm Art – 20%
Nikon 70-200 2.8 25%
Nikon 85mmv1.4 (portraits with pets and people)
Clearly Sigma Art lenses have filled the gap with excellent optics.
Also note that I would even have considerd replacing the 70-200 Nikon with a Sigma 50-150 had they not discontinued it.
There are other aspects that most of these lenses are lacking in , such as weather resistance /sealing,autofocus speed and general longevity and depreciation . Agreed the quality often surpasses so called pro lenses and if your mostly indoors ..who cares?I have a number of friends with sacks full of DX lenses and not a trip goes by without one of them whining about a lens that did not perform in salty conditions or dust in some desert .They all have one thing in common…they’re “married” to Nikon and don’t realize they don’t need a divorce but a girlfriend such as Sony,Fuji,Olympus etc.
Great article,
I also own two systems , NIkon and Sony.
The issue you didn’t mention is Sony lens cost .
Recently I bought the sigma 20 mm ART.
Sony does have a fantastic option the Loxia 21mm
At the doble the cost! This is just one example, there are a lot
More expanses of Sony Equivalent glass being more expensive.
I can’t agree more with that Mirrorless is the future,
It is simply not there with the current A7R 2 and A6000.
The Sony has a few more fronts to tackle , service , many failures due to lack proper weather sealing and real word performance ( the first camera to address it is the a6300)
When you shoot it for a few seconds it freezes.
So yes it is going there but it is not there yet , my beat 5 years at least until they will outperform DSLR in every critical aspect
Yair
The future for both Nikon and Canon may very well be in a combination of new and better glass for their DX-lines as well as for their future mirrorless lines. This could go as far as a new lensmount specifically for DX and Mirrorless, smaller and thus for lighter lenses than their full-frame counterparts.
A camera like the new Nikon D500 could be the better choise for wildlife shooters with reliable lighter super-tele lenses. If these could cater to the mirrorless systems at the same time there would be a far better marketing potential. That’s why I don’t agree with the idea that the DX-lines will become obsolete. I would like to see more and better long telelenses for a camera like the D500. That could be with a smaller lensmount for both DX and mirrorless. That in itself would make more sense then holding on to a lensmount that is actually too big for the DX-system.
Dear Nasim :)
DSLR is bad?
Mirrorles is bad?
Lack of lenses?
Nikon and Canon lost a battle?
Why we do need to buy new camera?
Ha, ha, ha….great! Vladimir, the best of today’s is obsolete ….tomorrow!!
The battery issue is a non issue. Carrying 3-4 additional cheaper batteries in my waist pocket sure beats lifting a D3 or D750 battery from my waist to my eye 1,000 times on a wedding day.
First time I used an X-T1 and put it into continuous high I knew the D3 was going to be sold the following week. It was magic. Colours out of the Fuji means I can use the JPEGs as they are. Fuji made the films we used to love when we shot on our Canon 1v and NIKON F5s and have nailed it in camera. My 5Dmk3 and D750 just don’t give me the colour either out of camera or after messing around in Lightroom.
Bokeh out of the Fuji 90mm f2 is comparable to the mighty NIKON 200mm F2.0 in a side by side test, including the 56mm 1.2 and Canons 70-200 f2.8 VR2.
The 56mm 1.2 made me toss my 85mm 1.2 because it nails focus every shot, unlike the Canon which has too thin a depth of field. And I can use it wide open in direct daylight due to the 1:32,000 shutter speed.
The downsides are there.
1. People don’t take the camera seriously as a pro camera. Until they see the results. My work has been in magazines and one competition paid off my entire Fuji kit in one fell swoop.
2. Focus in low light can be a big problem.
3. Only one card slot (fixed in the upcoming X-T2?)
4. Fuji have a seriously nerfed flash system.
NIKON and Canon need to study the lessons of Kodaks fall. Adapt or die. I want them to adapt.
Apologies typing on my iPad and the text scrolledand autocorrected before I finished this:
“Bokeh out of the Fuji 90mm f2 is comparable to the mighty NIKON 200mm F2.0 in a side by side test, including the 56mm 1.2 and Canons 70-200 f2.8 VR2.”
To clarify, in a side by side test I did with the Nikon 200 F2.0, XF 56mm F1.2, Canon 70-200m F2.8 VR2, and the XF 90mm F2.0, where I moved the camera with the shorter lenses to keep the subject the same size, the bokeh from the Fuji 90mm was the closest to the 200 F2 and the Bokeh balls were very similar.
If you have the 200 do not sell it, but if you want something that is nearly as magical the 90 is a much cheaper option.
My thoughts exactly concerning the batteries: I’d rather have more weight in my pocket than having to lift it constantly with my arm. This also goes for the body when people claim the only weight advantage is the lighter body. For me less weight is more;-)
Fuji makes a great system but you mentioned one big issue for me – a seriously “nerfed” flash system. It’s why I decided on Olympus as a second system instead of Fuji. It’s unfortunate, because Fuji offers better potential image quality.
A year ago, i had to decide if i go on with nikon or change to the new XT.
The reason, why i bought a D 810 was the stoneage flash possibilities on the fuji.
Meanwhile i bought some Sigma Art lenses and iam happy.
Iam a pro fotographer, doing Wedding, portrait and business.
Agree 100% but have one suggestion…If you happen to have a pocket wizard system a ac3 controller and say one or two canon EX600RT’s you can easily shoot manual by powering up and down with the ac3 (I normally shoot studio ettl with my canon dslr system and so far am happy with manual on my XT1).Agree it wouldn’t hurt them to get some dedicated package going so we can stop using our X100 models for HS.
Hi Nasim, Always good articles, as usual :) Well, I am a DSLR user since 5 years now and since I switch from my D7000 to a D800, I still use the old one as a backup. To be honest, that discussion DSLR vs Mirrorless is something I am following but not to replace my main camera but to have a mirrorless as a backup. I can see few pros but as always lots of cons as well. I personally compare that discussion with the car engines: petrol vs diesel. Diesel are making lots of progress but petrol is still the reference :)
As someone that just spent a week doing micro-focus adjustments on my D750 and D810 …. argh. Mirrorless sounds so great in theory.
But I’ve only been badly burned in my life by mirrorless cameras, never DSLR’s.
Mirrorless autofocus is not reliable as soon as you step indoors, or as the sun sets. Even as they measure better for low light autofocus, with each generation, the reliability is not there.
In 2014 I was getting great shots with my 2007 Canon XTi. Fall of that year I switched to Sony a6000 (“fastest autofocus in the world!!!!!) and suddenly I had a rubber shutter half the time when indoors, or blurred shots indoors if I used back-button.
The real problem with mirrorless, in my experience, is the misleading hype.
Example: I would never have missed the second half of that 30 minute jazz set, if someone had warned me that the a6000 video overheats after 15 minutes. I would have had a second camera ready to go.
Example: I would never have lost all those shots that night at the roof top party with my a6000 if it were not for all the hype (LIES) about how amazing the autofocus is.
Thanks for a superb article Nasim. I would just add those two things mentioned here already:
a. Low light autofocus is a problem when you try to squeeze the autofocus mechanism onto the image sensor.
b. Misleading hype leads to misfires and a backlash.
Thanks,
Art
Some time I used two systems side by side: a Nikon D800 and an Olympus EM-1. I found the autofocus of the Olympus extremely reliable and of the D800 problematic (I do not shoot fast moving objects). I changed both systems for one Nikon D750 as a compromise in weight and quality. Imo the D750 is a truly fantastic camera (the best I have owned) but now I am traveling in Asia I miss my super lightweight Olympus setup… Lenses for the m4/3 can be really extremely small and featherlight, a pleasure to use.
I shoot these two systems. In my experience, for stationary subjects in average or better light (not 30 minutes past sunset…) the AF on the Olympus OMD-EM1 is more reliable. Obviously, for moving subjects, the Nikon is better.
Adapt or die is indeed the Kodak story. But I don’t believe Nikon or Canon are no where near as blind. As a FF Nikon user for the last 4 years, I have wondered if it makes sense for Nikon to innovate their DSLR’s with electronic view finders and perhaps even make them mirrorless. The current size, weight and handling of my D750 fit’s my hands perfectly fine. However, a bigger and brighter view finder along with better AF would be a real benefit. Imagine a slightly larger “peep-hole” that reduces squinting and reveals the bigger picture!
I’m also very keen in weight reduction. The lens is, and always has been, the gate keeper. And Nikon credit, they have been releasing less bulky FX lens. That’s an area that I see as a major strategic advantage for both Nikon and Canon. Innovation in lens design and weight is a game changer. That along with evolving hybrid FF DSLR would be a major win for professionals and enthusiasts. The Dx lines are fine for sports and birding and can also benefit from the above. The 800# gorilla point-and-shoot market—forget about it. Smart phones have really done a very good job of meeting their needs. And quite frankly, their very decent digital images along with their size and weight, make them king of the mountain!
Hi Sanford,
I just recently got an LG G4. The camera in it is so good I would never even consider a P&S. For that reasoron, it’s difficult for me to see any future in that market.
I know this has hurt the traditional camera manufacturers so they have to deal with an overall smaller matket. This narrows their margin for error in terms of overall profitability. I think it has made Nikon more cautious as they can’t afford mistakes.
Nice article, but Aaaaaargh here we go again! Right, I love my Nikon outfit but… It’s big, conspicuous, heavy and issues with focusing. I’m on holiday right now. I take out my Leica or my a6000 walk around snap away, quickly sharply etc. No one notices. Put if back in my pocket. I take out my Nikon (admittedly with 24-70 or 70-200 2.8s) I’m the centre of frigging attention. Everyone wants to know why I took a photo of this and that. How much did it cost, “my friend has one of these or a Canon” etc. It takes most of the table space at lunch. It’s nice to interact but… Carrying the monster also makes me feel that photography is a big deal (which is good & bad) and I should have a tripod with me for those long blurred water shots etc. I keep thinking, Bresson, Capa, Douglas Duncan, et al never had big cameras. We’ve got over the mega pixels. Technology means you can do more with little. There’s still just about a place for both but I increasing feel the days of the big beasts are a) no longer necessary and b) numbered. Even for twitching, sports etc.
When I feel like that, I take the grip off my 750 (or 600 or 7200), strap on a 50 and look like a tourist.
If you think a DSLR is heavy and attracts attention try shooting with a 4×5 or 8×10 view camera some time! It is a non stop Q-and-A session with every passer-by!
that use to bother me also
Does anyone else agree with me that looking at a video image in the viewfinder is just not pleasant? I love SLRs, their optical image and do not like the shooting experience with mirrorless cameras, even if they have some advantages (yes I do understand these) over the DSLR design. Mirrorless are not for me but am I alone in having this stance for this fundamental reason?
Hi David,
while reading Nasims article, I had the same thoughts. I don’t like the image actual EVF´s present to my eyes either. They look unnatural, pixelated and mostly too slow compared to an optical VF. But I think, Nasim is right in his suggestions: sooner or later EVF will catch up with quality and speed and looking through them will not be a pain anymore.
Peuqui
I shoot both Nikon FX and Fuji X. Take a look at the X-T1 EVF and you might change your mind. I’m starting to go the otherway and prefer the EVF.
I would not change my mind on just the EVF of a mirrorless, it can be unreliable. the D810..is speed, EVF, lenses
i shoot macro, also to balance this out i have the pro2 Fuji with the 35 f2
Yes, I am with you on that.
Looking at a TV screen is not the same experience as a looking out of an open window.
It feels ‘artificial’.
Very good article. You mentioned that dSLRs are not making enough good lenses (specifically) for APS-C. But you neglected to mention that they ARE making the lenses from full frame compatible with APS-C, and that the lenses made for full frame work perfectly well for APS-C sensors. In fact, they use the sharpest part of the lens.
Also, everyday folks appreciate telephoto zooms more than wide angle lenses. So the fact that a 70-300 full frame lens becomes a 105-450 is great to them.
It would have been good to point out that there is/was a lack of high quality wide angle lens options.
Another thing to remember is that since many dSLRs have larger sensors than mirrorless, their stock optics don’t need to be as good. Larger sensor = less enlargement = not as good of a lens required for the same quality. I think Olympus and Panasonic know this, and are only producing top quality lenses for their 4/3 cameras. When we start to see more APS-C mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, they will have to up their game.
I really agree with this. I’m on my third Nikon DX now (D7000) and have been using the 70-300 for all my Nikon DX cameras. It’s not the sharpest lens ofcourse. But indeed, the range on DX is great. Besides of that I also have been using the Tokina 11-16 wide-zoom. Great lens and very sharp. This gives a very reasonable way to do wide-angle work. I’ve considered going full frame on D750, but may stick to DX on D500. It’s true, with lenses for FF you get the best of these lenses on DX. I’ve also been using the 50/1,8 and 85/1,4 primes for a long time now. With these lenses (plus the Macro 105) I think I’ll stick with DSLR for now. And FF primes on DX are no big deal, the size of Nikon D7000/D7100 and D7200 DX is almost identical to FF D750.
>> In fact, they use the sharpest part of the lens
This is true, but don’t forget that they are crop lenses in the absolute sense.
The effect – the quality of the image will suffer when using FF lenses on crop cameras. For arguments sake let’s assume that the resolving power of your lens is a perfect 20 megapixels on a 20MP sensor (for arguments sake). You put that lens on an FF camera with a 20MP sensor and you get 20 pMPs (perceived megapixels). Put the same lens on a 1.5 crop camera, and your resolution is nowhere near 20MP anymore. In fact, the perceived resolution is now exactly the same as it would have been on your FF camera, cropped and then enlarged to the same size as the FF image. Quick calc in my head says that your crop camera would have about 13 pMPs.
So, putting a full frame lens on a crop camera can have a (significantly) detrimental effect on image quality.
Excellent article! Thank you for taking the time and effort to analyze the situation. Very informative and insightful!
I’ve been systematically selling off my Nikon cameras and lenses. No particular reason other than my needs are changing. All I want now is a really good “travel” camera. I bought a D7200 with an 18-300mm lens for both me and my wife. They’re working well for travel.
Recently, however, we’ve renewed our interest in scuba diving. Your article on the new Sony a6300 caught my eye, especially when I start to compare housings and their prices. I can pretty much buy a Sony a6300, lens, and housing for the price of a housing alone for my D7200. And, when it comes to weight and size, the numbers change pretty dramatically when you put a big ol underwater housing on these cameras. The Sony starts to look very attractive.
I understand that one of the drawbacks with mirrorless at this point is the lack of auxiliary equipment, like lenses and flashes. In the case of an underwater system, lens requirements are much smaller than land use. The 16-50mm lens already offered by Sony would work just fine. Also, many people use third party flash systems with optical fiber “cables” regardless of the camera system they dive with. No different with the Sony body.
This presents me with an opportunity to try out a mirrorless system without risking a bunch of money that goes to unusable equipment. I believe the Sony a6300 would be a good choice for an underwater system, and I’ll have it to experiment with while on land too. Win Win for me. Maybe not so much for Nikon.
Hi Nasim,
As always, a great article with a lot of interesting points to ponder!
As you know I’ve shot with various Nikon formats over the years (FX, DX, CX) and last year I sold all of my FX gear and now exclusively shoot with the Nikon 1 CX system for both my client video work and for my personal needs. I fully appreciate that I am one of an incredibly small number of photographers who would ever make that type of decision. And, I would never recommend that other people do what I’ve done.
I’d be the first person to state that there are a lot of trade-offs in terms of dynamic range, colour depth and low light performance that were involved in my decision. Plus, my Nikon 1 gear doesn’t give me all of the shooting options that were available with my D800 or other DSLRs that I owned in the past. Having said that, my only regret is not selling my FX gear sooner.
I regularly need to position my cameras in very tight, unusual positions (sometimes bordering on bizarre) for my client video work and the Nikon 1 system is simply ideal for what I do. It also allows me to capture the required field of view along with the depth-of-field needed at more wide open apertures. Many times this means that I can shoot scenes in available light and not spend time setting up banks of studio lights. This makes me much more efficient in terms of time spent on-site…for some video assignments this has meant a time saving of 30% or more.
Choice of camera gear is, and always will be, an intensely personal decision based on the needs of a specific photographer. I have never thought of my Nikon 1 CX camera gear as being ‘mirror-less’, nor did that fact ever enter into my decision to buy it.
It’s strange to say but I originally looked at the Nikon 1 system because of a rather odd restriction on most Nikon DSLRs at the time…that being not being able to adjust aperture on-the-fly when shooting video. My Nikon 1 V2’s allow me to do that so I bought my first one as a secondary camera to supplement my D800. That first purchase soon led to more 1 Nikon lenses and bodies and eventually abandoning my DSLR gear altogether. It was all about finding a camera system that best met my unique needs.
I think the most important thing for any of us to do when it comes to choosing camera gear is to have a crystal clear understanding of our needs and what trade-offs we are willing to make in order to have our needs best met. Whether a particular camera happens to be a DSLR or mirror-less to me is a moot point. All we need care about is how well it does what we need doing.
Tom
Hi Tom, very laudable reasons behind your Nikon 1 system, and as you shoot for clients, what works for them, through you, in terms of camera choice, is pivotal to your choices.
I feel quite privilleged by being a hobbyist shooting only for pleasure. I imagine my shooting is relatively limited compared to a pro photographer, so different things come into play, for those like me, I will try to help through explaining…
A pro could easily be shooting 200 stills or more a day, even upwards of 1000 for weddings, plus video, whereas, if you are a hobbyist, most of your time is actually not spent shooting, but finding a location that fits your interests of the day, getting there, getting set up, and finally, shooting, while waiting for the light to be right in many cases (moreso in the UK).
This kind of photography requires you to get to know your kit very intimately, as you are not using it day after day after day, but in spurts, weekends, the odd afternoon off etc.
Ownership of a body with which you are familiar, and happy with it’s results, is therefore high on the list of priorities, as you are not shooting constantly, it takes a lot longer to learn all the nuances available in the settings, and how to access and use them. Same goes for lenses. Finding the right glass for that body is a demanding exercise in itself, and though I have moved through four bodies and probably a dozen lenses over the past five years, the bodies have been increments of the same model (the D5000 – D5500 in my case) placing very little demand on learning new features, and on the lens front, I have evolved from original lenses to interim improvements, and now my final tools of choice (5 lenses in all of which three are used often, the others less so). It has taken a long time to grow into what is comfortable for my own needs, and this echos with what Tom says above, and understanding of your needs as you upgrade (or grow, as I prefer to call it) along the way.
Though i have said goodbye to quite a few lenses, apart from the Nikkor 55-300 AF-s, I have not regretted buying any of them in the first place. Resolution in the camera bodies, as I moved on to newer releases, revealed shortcomings in some of them, but I doubt that even with the 24mp I now shoot with, they would yield a poor image at a 10×8 print assuming my technique overcame focus and camera shake issues.
As to mirrorless, well, just like Tom, I would not be buying on that aspect, but primarily on image quality, and then features. Certainly, from the time it has taken me to assemble what is, for me, a perfect kit, the thought of starting over and replacing it all with new bodies and lenses fills me with dread.
If you are just coming into photography, maybe that’s a different issue, yet, problems still seem to remain with mirrorless, and I do, most of all, love the way my D5500 snaps into focus so quickly, even in poor light.
In many ways, you cannot buy a bad camera these days, the gap between them is very narrow compared to 10 years ago, so if you are a hobbyist like me, my best advice is to develop the hobby, and you’ll soon find the kind of lenses you need, and the kind of shots you want to take, as the hobby bites you, and inspires you.
Avoid change for changes’ sake, but when there is a lens out there that you know will make particular shots better or easier, then go and get it. The main thing as a hobbyist, is keeping the hobby alive by going out there as much as you can, and enjoying it.
Professional shooting is not like that, the pressures of running a business, meeting and satisfying clients, and working to their scheldue all detract from the freedom a hobbyist can enjoy, that said, the challenges of pro work are no doubt just as exciting.
Hope that helps with the weekend fast approaching, dust off that dslr and get out there!
Tom, SPOT ON!
Love this comment. So spot on!
Do you not think Nikon and Canon have not considered mirrorless DSLRs? Why have they resisted? Or is there a technological block you have not considered? Note – no Nikon or Canon user is ever going to abandon their glass. And as you have said, the Sony new G- lenses for mirrorless offer no weight advantages over their DSLR counter parts.
Something is missing and your article does not address that which prevents Nikon or Canon from developing a mirrorless DSLR compatible with their current line up of lenses. If the flange were the only difference, it seems like in 2016 we can adapt, right?
I think Nasim explained things very well. Nikon and Canon seem to have gone a different way with bigger cameras and may have missed the mark in the direction things are going. The possibilities Nasim describes are very interesting too; things like extreme HDR exposures not even possible with a DSLR.
And, being a Nikon shooter since the 1980s, I can tell you that I would abandon my Nikon glass in a heartbeat if there was an advantage. I don’t owe Nikon anything, nor do I defend the company. They’ve never been particularly interested in my buisness even after the thousands of dollars I’ve given them over the years.
Nasim, while discussing auto’t focus, don’t forget manual focus. Manually I cannot precisely focus a dSLR. And in the field, with bright sun, it’s often impossible. (Why don’t dSLRs have focusing grids, as did all manual focus SLRs for decades?). But with peaking, I can manually focus a Nex 7. I can use vintage manual lenses. Focusing is a skill and it’s fun. Manual focusing is an essential tool in close up and macro. I’ve owned 4 film SLRs (3 Nikons and a Konica) and 2 dSLRs (both Nikon) but using them and toting them, I always longed for return to a compact, quiet, split image rangefinder Leica (we had 4 in the household). With my 3 Sony Nex 7 at long last I’m satisfied.
One of the advantages of mirrorless cameras so I have been told is in street photography. With a large camera, you stand out as a “photographer” which makes it difficult to get true candid shots. With a smaller camera, you tend to blend in and become just another tourist.
Great article Nasim, as always. I think your last paragraph says it all. If Nikon and Canon decided to come out with a mirror-less camera with the current lens mount, I think many folks would go for that. A slightly bigger body compared to the competition would probably be welcomed my many as well.
Since mirrorless cameras started from the bottom, with small, cheap cameras, it is natural that the evolution has followed that path. However, to get to a top performing mirrorless camera a development path also needs to be started from the top of existing DSLR technology.
1. Body size.
We don’t mind the size and the grip of the DSLR.
2. Weight.
A little less weight would be nice. However, the bulk of the weight is in lenses anyway.
3. Flange distance.
A high end mirrorless camera launched today should use existing mounts and lenses. Successful lens designs stay on the market for around 8 years. Others are replaced in about 4. Meanwhile Nikon and Canon can figure out how to fill the void of prosumer mirrorless cameras.
4. Battery life.
Must match the DSLRs.
5. EVF.
EVF viewing quality is already acceptable and will keep getting even better. Focus peaking and a range of other EVF features will sooner or later quiet the die-hard mirror guys.
6. Mechanisms.
The improvement in camera reliability and image quality are the key selling points for a high end mirrorless camera. The slow but sure and hard to notice degeneration in mirror positioning, AF accuracy, light metering and more is the quiet Achilles heal of the DSLR camera and it will not be missed when finally gone.
I’m in the DSLR, but not because I see anything wrong with mirrorless. I just prefer the bigger size of a DSLR; I currently use a D800 and an F6, both with attached battery packs – I find both cameras to be too small without it.
The lenses on Sony’s Full Frame cameras are not small. Add a 24-70 to the SonyA7-whatever and it stops being small.
And also ridiculously unbalanced.
Dear Nasim, I say: DSLR & Mirrorless….
As a DX user weight was never an issue. I wanted FX for “better” glass options because of the lack of attention/availability for DX glass. My plan was to get a D610 + a 35mm, because of the field of view. Reading some good reviews on the Fuji’s I decided to buy the Fuji X100s. It is cheaper, lighter, more compact than a FX + 35mm combo. And I am more than happy about my decision. My X100s was less intimidating when doing street photography. It is basically always on me. Have used my X100s for paid jobs.
Seems I have reached a point I feel I need no FX camera’s any longer. My next purchase might be a Fuji X because of the good quality as well as focal length variety of Fuji glass. . Feel no need to switch, and won’t ditch my Nikon DX as I am still satisfied with the IQ.
Nasim, thanks for another fantastic article.
But I have a question for you as a FF Nikon owner with mega primes including the 200mm “Fatboy”.
My question deals with the simple fact that I have never seen a photograph from either a Nikon or a Canon DSLR of which is either: 1.) a fine closeup or 2.) a reflection on glass like a store’s picture window…that made me say WOW THAT’S SHARP!
However, I have seen this with a Fujifilm 16mm, 35mm and 90mm. If I was a “Conspiracy Advocate”, then I would say that there’s an X-Files like cover up which continues to expose that Nikon/Canon are the Gold Standard and Fujifilm is a puny (it is), upstart that can never play with the big boys.
I not kidding when I say that I have seen photos from the lens made by Fujifilm at ONLY 12Meg which make me think “wow, this is like looking through a window”. But this has never happened to me with a Nikon/Canon…not even close.
Nasim, I value your great ability to write about complex subject in terms that everyone can understand. Help.
Why here? Because in considering the failings of DSLR or APSC or Mirrorless…why isn’t anyone talking about a 24Meg product that trumps them all? It is about which is the best choice right?
Nasim, what choice could be better than “looking through a window”?
Thanks
I know exactly what you’re talking about. I always thought that AF-S 85mm F1.8 was very sharp lens, until I got a chance to compare it to XF 56mm F1.2.
I can say I was kind of shocked with the results.
How is that? I had the Fuji, too, and no I didn’t find it sharper than the 85/1.8g at all, quite the contrary. The question is how you compared them, at 100% (for different MP?), incorporating AA filter if present (Fuji lacks it), similar sharpening, did you fine tune …
To Northpole,
Hope you’re warm and say hello to the big guy in the red suit.
Yes, that’s a sharp Nixon lens and inexpensive too. But it gets sharper with the Zeiss Otis 85 as the top of the scale for center sharpness combined with sharpness to the corners.
But, the Fuji and now the 24Mp Fuji (release in a month or so) just stop me in my tracks and make me say “Wow, that’s sharp” and you never hear about compare’s like it’s a deep dark X-Files conspiracy. I see what I see. You know what you see, and it’s sharper.
I wish that there was a scientific article on why do we get this impression?
Interesting comment about how good some of the lenses from Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic are. The lens that made me say wow was the Olympus 40-150 2.8. This thing is visibly sharper then my very good Nikon 70-200. I expected it to be good (based on their 12-40 2.8), but it went beyond even my expectations. Nikon and Canon clearly don’t have a monopoly on good glass.
I think a lot of he success of mirrorless cameras belongs to one manufacturer: Sony. Sony makes sensors, Nikon doesn’t. Sony chooses to build competitive cameras that are mirrorless, and they design the sensors necessary to make those cameras perform. Nikon designs but does not fabricate to my knowledge. Canon builds sensors and they may catch up – now that they are being chased. But Sony is really the only game in town when it comes to really high performance and competitive mirrorless cameras, or am I wrong? Nikn or Canon can turn a DLSR into a mirrorless camera simply by lifting he mirror and projecting an EVF into the existing OVF – that’s not impossible. But the sensors they are currently using don’t have the capability to provide the quick readout neded or the PDAF points to supplement the off sensor PDAF system. My question would be: what inherent limitations are their on sensor based focusing vs a separate module? Do these two systems have inherent advantages and disadvantages? Sometimes the best product doesn’t win in the market and other factors have greater influence. Nothing is inevitable.
An excellent article thank you, but it leaves me still with a headache! I am fully kitted up with both a dSLR (D7100 and D800E) and Mirror-less (Fuji X-T1 and X-E2). I have an extensive range of lenses for both. I shoot Street/Landscape and Wildlife. I have a D500 on order, not an X-Pro2. I reflect your thoughts on the speed of AF on mirror-less and even with all the excellent X-T1 firmware updates the Fuji X-T1 for moving wildlife still doesn’t come near my dSLR’s.
I am aware that mirror-less is the future and I’m perhaps taking a risk with the D500 as perhaps in time mirror-less will match it’s credentials in terms of AF acquisition and tracking.
My major concern about Fuji X is that we now have large lenses (50-140 and 100-400mm) which for me make the X system a lesser contender due to weight and they make an OVF useless. I didn’t buy into Fuji X for wildlife, but for Street and landscapes as well as a travel kit and I think mirror-less is “work in hand”. I look forward to Nikon/Canon addressing this technology and challenging the current mirror-less offerings.
Richard
I did read somewhere, that Nikon FF mirrorless may be “forbidden” by Sony somehow, but that could be just speculation.
It’s hard to belive that Nikon would sign that kind of contract, but you never know.
It was to late when I saw spelling error…it should be “believe”, sorry.
I evaluated replacing a Nikon FX system with one based on the Sony A7 series. I agree that the weight differential isn’t huge – in my case it would have amounted to the DSLR bag weighing a few pounds more (due to the size difference, a larger bag was needed) – and we are talking of a bag that weighs between 25 and 30lbs. The Sony system would have cost considerably more – the system I was looking for would have consisted of the equivalent of 16-35/4, 24-70/4 (or thereabouts), 70-200/4 zooms and a set of primes at 24/25, 35, 85 as well as one macro lens (90 vs 150). For the difference in cost, I could have purchased a second D810 body! Please note that video capabilities of the two systems played no role in my decision at all – I don’t shoot video.
There were three main drawbacks for mirrorless: battery capacity (carry four Sony batteries for each Nikon one). Stop motion effect of the EVF making it very hard to follow a moving subject (or long black-outs – depending on the camera setting). AF performance, far inferior to the DSLR in anything but good light and also when tracking motion. Even the second generation A7 bodies hardly improve on the performance of the first in those aspects. Everyone keeps saying that mirrorless will be superior in short order – for years now; so I guess we will have to wait another decade. Everyone recites the infomercial content: fastest AF, most AF points – all meaningless if one can’t keep the moving subject in the viewfinder to begin with. Large area AF coverage is touted as an advantage of mirrorless – have a look at the Nikon D500 to see that it’s also possible on a DSLR. And I am not sure it is an advantage on either – lens vignetting effectively shades those outside areas making them less efficient. And another thing that’s missing with any Sony A7 – a means to easily move the AF point around; Sony’s solution is woefully inadequate.
Once again my “All-things Photographic Guru” comes through with an insightful article.
As the current popular obsession with size and weight abates the marketing minds will hopefully transition back to the more important aspect of photography – image quality! – and all the variables that affect that goal.
Some Thoughts:
Pentax has produced mirror-less cameras such as the k-01 (http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/digital-mirrorless/K01.html) which uses the same mount and flange to sensor distance used by the entire K-mount arsenal of lenses. The point is Canon and Nikon could do the same just by substituting an electronic viewfinder for the pentaprism and flapping mirror (size and weight be damned), therefore maintaining compatibility with their existing lens line up . All the required technology is in place to enable this change. The question is why are they reluctant to go down this road?
Perhaps it is Japanese inertia and tradition? Or maybe market research suggests that the army of DSLR owners around the world are so wedded to their analogue viewers and flapping mirrors that they will not respond with their hard earned coin.
Superior technology does not always win in the market place – Sony Betamax is a good example, I think the Pentax effort has been a market failure mainly because of very poor design.
The ‘big mirrorless’ will what is called ‘validate’ the concept. The buyers will say: oh, yes, this is great, I need it. Oh it is just like that other slim mirrorless. Hmm that one is cheaper and better (more mature).
So.. maybe the best way out is to build the SLR, get proper live view in, and add an EVF to the mirror system. Mirror up should give a view at the EVF.
That way they can have the best of both worlds: matte glass view for realtime, or zoom and exposure view on the EVF.
And when that fully works out, drop the mirror.
I think BTW that the Canon mirrorless (EF-M) with the Canon EF lens adapter are about what you are looking for.
Hi Nasim, I have made a similar Point before about Nikon keeping their mount a mirrorless. I don’t think the pro market would be that concerned with a tiny body. It’s been mentioned many times before but once you put 2.8 zoom or long tele on a small body it becomes unbalanced and un wieldy.
If I were Nikon I would offer two versions of their next flag ship with a serious mirrorless contender. A D6 mirroless in a large body, but still smaller then D5!, and a D900 with mirroless as well(they could offer slr at same time). They should then invest into their video department and be able to offer much better codecs, profiles, on board xlr adapters into the battery grip for audio. Then I think they can compete.
The real Nikon share killer is the humble mobile phone which will surely eat into ‘small is better’ campaign of mirrorless as well.
I think you are on to something here. I would happily buy a mirror-less D500!
Good article, Nasim. But why did you omit 4/3 from the discussion? Sony and Fuji gear is very good, no question, but 4/3 is made just as well as APSC, the cameras are smaller, and the lenses are not only a lot smaller, but 4/3 has unarguably the best lens selection outside of Canikon full frame. I sold 30 years of Nikon gear last year, moving to a full Olympus system, with one Panasonic lens- the tiny 12-32 collapsible. Can you add 4/3 to the discussion?
I added Olympus as a second system for it’s excellent size, great lens selection, excellent EVF etc. I have no hesitation in using these cameras professionally (pet photography) I still have Nikon for very active dogs / horses and for wildlife. It’s just a great system.
Scott, having owned an OM-D E-M5 before and tested a number of Olympus cameras, I am a big fan of Micro Four Thirds. The only reason why I did not mention it in the article, is because I was referring to APS-C sensors, as there are APS-C DSLRs and APS-C mirrorless, which are equivalent in terms of sensor technology…
Without a doubt, M43 has the largest selection of lenses available and it is a very mature, solid mirrorless system.
Very good analysis, but with one serious mistake:
Mirrorless lenses are smaller and lighter because they mount closer to the sensor!
Also – the main huge advantage of mirrorless (much more than the size advantage!), is the ability to see the final result (light, focus, DOF, WB etc, before taking the picture)!
Like it or not, mirrorless is the future, and DSLR days are ending…
Arik, only specific lenses designed for the short flange distance have that advantage and I mentioned this in the article. Take a look at the new 24-70mm, 70-200mm and 85mm lenses from Sony – none of them are smaller than their DSLR counterparts.
Only wide angle lenses that be can designed so that the rear element intrudes back into the body are smaller, which was the case with rangefinder lenses, slr wides couldn’t do this as the mirror would be in the way. Teles and normal lenses assuming focal length and aperture parity are of equal size, there about.
I do appreciate the thoroughness of the reviews of equipment that all of you provide, Nasim. Because I started out in photography in the days when film choices were the basis for getting the good shots, and the camera was the delivery system, I’m inclined to look at what the equipment will do for me according to what I want to do. In the days of film, you had a choice of fine-grain films or extremely grainy films, various color balances, and various companies, as well as a variety of darkroom chemicals that could be manipulated if necessary to give you what you wanted. It wasn’t necessary to change equipment to get the results you want.
When PL reviewed the Nikon Coolpix p900, the review afforded me an opportunity to decide if that one piece of equipment will be more suitable to my needs than my D300 for shooting birds and bugs at a distance without disturbing them, and likewise give me the closeup shots and the flexibility I’m looking for in a non-film camera. I’ve seen enough samples of what it can do now to decide that, yes, it will work to get slow-motion videos of swallows in a nearby wetland area, and still go bug hunting on a different card.
We all have to remember that current digital imaging came out of cameras built into phones, demanded by teenage Japanese girls, released 18 months ahead of their release in the US. Instant results are what the general public wants. It’s the reason film has pretty much gone south to end up with people like me, who still love the use of film even though our choices are more limited now. I just do not think there is anything that can beat a 4×5 cut film image for clarity and sharpness. But that’s just me. And since I found a diapositive image of one of my great grandmothers, I’d have to say that film/emulsion use has advantages that digital imaging does not.
I don’t want to have to keep changing equipment to get results. I think the smarter thing to do is pick what you think will work best for you and go with that. I chose the D300 over the D3 because I could not justify the cost of the D3. Now that refinement itself has gone a step further, if I want to move up it seems I’ll have to acquire new lenses to fit the finer format. In this regard, the Coolpix P900 may be a better and smarter choice for me. It seems to be a more flexible platform. I don’t care about mirror vs. mirrorless. I have both.
I think the mistake that always comes from this is the idea that the camera is responsible for the image. Well, it isn’t. It’s you, the person using it, who is responsible. You have a storage card instead of film, to hold your images. You have an instant review of what you shot, instead of a wait for the lab to process and proof your stuff, or do it yourself. You have software to manipulate and correct your images, instead of doing darkroom work or collages and copystand shots for hours. The point I’m making is that it’s much easier and quicker now to do all of those things than it was in 1965. It’s all coming out of you, the cameraman/girl. The camera is just the instrument in your hands, getting the image.
On the other hand, my Nikon F2 works just fine, thank you, and I’m keeping it. And since people are still dumping good used film cameras, I may just run down to Central Camera and see if they have a good working F4. I sold mine. Now I wish I’d kept it.
Sara, Hiroshi Sugimoto is using….8-by-10-inch negatives…and his body of photography, architecture work surpasses work of photographers who are discussing whether using camera with mirror is better than without it……I do agree with you that concentrating on making photos is the most important in making great photos….however we should not give up on using the latest technology if only we need to do so.
I personally do not think as the larger size of a DSLR as a disadvantage as you state. They are not that big in comparison! They are easier to shoot with and more rugged. The small size argument is pushed by the mirrorless manufacturers and it is just bought into as the right way to go. I disagree and will never own a mirrorless because they are too small… I think there are many like me as well.
Larger mirror less offerings will and are already on the market. The size advantage for me is only really with smaller sensors, once you have a full frame the lenses will be large any way. The new sonys a series are pretty big, only slightly thinner then say a d5100. Sports, wildlife and photo journalists I think will always want a bigger form factor that can provide tough weather sealed bodied with good battery life. Eventually though mirrors will go, even if it’s to save costs. But if the d5 can do 12fps, without a mirror well it won’t have a restriction caused by moving a mirror. Also af will eventually be a whole new ball game. I think it’s about when not if for Nikon and cannon to get serious about removing the mirrors.
Time to jump on my Pentax band wagon. Pentax has been producing high quality aps-c 2.8 lenses for some time. And the cameras are small and lenses small. My Pentax K-3 is as small as a mirror less camera and my two 2.8 zooms will take me from 24-70mm and 70-200mm FF equivalent in half the space of a FF camera and lens! Add weather resistance, and you have a winning combination. And now late to the party, a new Pentax full frame is on the way!
Jay, I am curious to see how the new Pentax full-frame will look.
Since you are a Pentax fan, you will be probably excited to see my first Pentax review coming up – 645Z :)
Little OOT: a Leica alternative with M mount and EVF would be nice. Perfect for small mf lenses playing nicely all advantages of mirrorless cameras.
I own a lot of Nikon glass and cameras as well as a Fuji X-T1. I love my Fuji but lens selection is limited or very costly and I like 24 megapixels over 16. Just my personal preference. I currently am looking at the new Sony A6300, it looks good. The problem I find with Sony is that their lenses cost a bundle if you want something better than the kits. To buy that camera and a good 24-70 lens is an investment and they don’t even include a BATTERY CHARGER? Build it into the price for gods sake.
Maybe mirrorless are the future, maybe not.
All I can say is this.
Give me a mirrorless like my pro DSLR, which I can take in the wild, go though branches, mud, rain, dirt and dust, beating and so on.Give me the same argonomics, button intuitive layout and so on.
Give me a lens like the Nikkor 300mm 2.8 VR for this mirrorless, and I mean optical quality, AF speed and accurasy, overall quality of the lens itself and so on.
Give me the perfect balance of them both combined when using my gimbal head, long lasting battery and everything else.
For now, I am sticking with my Nikon gear, thank you.
You should check out the new Olympus M.Zuiko 300mm f4! Its supposed to be phenomenal glass!
I totally agree with you on this. Nikon has totally missed the mark for the last few years. Only thing keeping them in the game are their lenses. The J1 is a completely useless since it has such a small sensor. Way too much noise when using such a small sensor. It’s a great way to learn how to make a mirrorless camera, but they should have come up with a FF by now. Then they came out with the DF, which no one wants. I don’t think I ever saw a single person using a DF. That should of been a mirrorless camera instead. Then they came out with the D750, what’s the point, it’s too similar to the D610. What they should have done was to make it as the replacement for the old D700 which would have the same size body as the D800 but a smaller MP sensor with more frames per second. Love my D700, that I can shoot up to 8FPS with the external grip. Now again they come out with the D500. Who really wants a super high end cropped sensor camera when there are really not any fast lenses for it to use with it. If Nikon and Canon don’t wake up, they will become the next Kodak. I was surprised how fast film died off and digital cameras replaced them.
Nasim,
You are one of the best, if not THE best, bloggers about photography on the Internet. Your articles are incredibly informative, smart, well-rounded and fair. You speak to the masses and you do it with grace. You are respectful of others and their opinions.
Please, never change.
Thanks,
Michael
Avid Enthusiast and Future Wedding Photographer
Michael, you are too kind sir! Thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it.
The discussion misses a very important point. Nikon has excellent lenses for the APS-C cameras, namely the Nikon FX full frame lenses. The APS-C sensor uses only the center area of the FX lens where the lens is sharper. Vignetting and low edge sharpness are avoided.
Nassim’s excellent post covers two issues: where do the systems stand today and what is possible in the future.
The above discussion mostly centers around the ‘where we stand’.
Strategically, the ‘mirrorless’ is going to be the dominant design. I expect it in 5, at most 7 years (noting that Nikon is on a 4 year technology cycle).
The mirror was introduced some 60 years ago to solve the viewfinder problem (parallax, 100%). Its cost is complexity and mirror slap. It was the clear winner and SLR’s dominated. AF and better metering was added.
Today’s DSLR’s are an evolution. They need 3 sets of sensors: main image, AF and metering.
The AF systems has difficult tolerance issues and works ‘open loop’. The camera says to the lens ‘go to x’ and then shoots. No checking is done at x.
Thanks to a 30 year iteration cycle, that AF design is now fairly good and with proper adjustment and tuning capable of stunningly fast acquisition and tracking. But then, some lenses don’t work and AF tuning is difficult, inefficient and never covers all focal lengths and distances.
With the mirrorless design all AF and metering is done with the main sensor. Both PD and contrast methods are possible and a closed-loop design with checking before exposure possible. Such AF can achieve both fast and 100% accurate focus. We should always be careful in distinguishing actual performance and theoretical possibilites. The achievable performance of mirrorless AF is clearly much better.
Then, there is computational photography. Nassim gave good examples. Research at Universitits is makeing impressive progress. With enough computing power we can interprete the scene, adjust AF intelligently, do HDR and much better exposure, can de-noise, choose focus in post and much more. The DSL is crippled in this area.
Mirrorless has come a very long way in just a decade. Progress is still fast whereas progress in the DSLR is minimal (look at D5 vs D4 compared to A7 mk II vs. mk I).
Agree mostly. MILCs have tolerance issues too, which is why OSPDAF needs to be finished by CDAF cycles for accurate focus. This is due to lens tolerances (tell the lens element to move to a certain position x will result in x+/-tolerance), for example. This is why Sony uses their hybrid AF, but increases focusing time this way. If one analyses the different AF methods, PD in DSLRs is faster and enables quick focus even out of strongly defocused images. I see this all the time at weddings with my A7x cameras compared to my Nikons. The OSPDAF lacks phase information when focus is reached, as light rays from different parts of the lens are all within the COC. The AF-system needs to let the image get slightly out of focus until PD-information is available again. The available data for PD gets worse, with longer lenses, especially as here situations like strong defocus before focussing are normal. Half masked small PD pixels need light (AF-systems works better with a lot of light which is why fast lenses provide good performance, slower lenses have, in my experience, strong performance deficits. This ends up with wedding photographers like us setting effect off in dim light, as the camera now focuses wide open and only thereafter stops down). So MILCs proved nice options due to the available sensor data, but I still see an advantage for the next couple of years for DSLRs with long lenses. Additionally, I, personally, would like to have some kind of hyprid DSLR/MILC, using the best of both worlds. What people don’t mention, too, is that the RGB-metering sensor is able to provide a lot of data, too, for DSLRs. Nikon’s 3d tracking is excellent, face detect works, too. Increase resolution to a few MP and you have a lot of data to work with.
DSLR versus mirrorless is pointless, it’s like the old CISC vs. RISC flame wars. This is just an implementation detail, but it gives a nice headline, for sure. The real question is: what camera is the right one?! Everyone has to answer it based on their own needs and requirements. For example, for me EVFs are a no go, no matter how good they are. I want to see the world through my eyes, as simple as that. Thus, Fuji X2 Pro or X100 cameras are far more attractive to me than Sony, for example – even though both are mirrorless cameras …
I have a 7RII and have to carry everyday 4 extra batteries because of the poor battery life of mirrorless (especially this camera).
Each battery is 0.2lb (100g), so it’s 0.8lb (400g) extra weight.
Do not forget to add to the weight of the bag, and you will see the weight difference is not so….different, especially if you plan to have the best lenses , which tend to be heavy.
If you absolutely want lightweight, then go for Olympus. If you want the best compromise between weight and quality, go for Fuji. If you want the best quality, go for Sony.
And to decide between a Sony or a Canon/Nikon, it’s just a matter a time… For now if you want reliable pro gear, go DSLR.
But in 1 year, 2 years maximum, it will be different.
Panasonic (which is building the Leica SL) is planning to go to FF.
Fuji is planning to go to Mediam Format.
Olympus is planning to make FF lenses (for their own system ? or other systems ?)
Nikon might buy Samsung mirrorless division.
Sony WILL release a true pro mirrorless FF
Excellent article. Ever since the release of the X100 I’m trying to live with Fujifilm X-series in the margin of my Nikon gear – but it’s still a love and hate relationship. Though the X-T1 is a very competent camera in travel situations – there are still occasions in which it can’t compete with professional DSLR gear and I have many questions about all those ‘DSLR-ditchers’. A lot of hyping is going on rumors and fanboy sites & fora (not exaggerating, we can assume that 99% of the posts are being made by not even experienced amateurs).While also professionals are suddenly showing up with not yet released models – venting over-enthousiast experiences in blogs with a bit too perfect portfolios (hmm, this smells to a steady funding). I don’t have a problem that Nikon and Canon are a bit more conservative and reluctant to enter new adventures – their anthem is stability, reliability, legacy… and all those MILC-competitors still have a serious way to go in a shrinking market – solve the technical flaws, battery issues, fill in the missing lenses, create decent accessories like flashes and get the right support too from third party manufacturers too.
Exactly my thoughts! And from looking at the 2015 CIPA numbers I cannot see that mirrorless is taking over the world anytime soon.
it is good…specially in fast moving object and sports tournament …My question is there also a actuation counter or shuterr counter and how many counts or i mean life expectancy life of mirrorless cameras (actuation please).? Thank You!
For me “DSLR vs Mirrorless” and what technology will “win” is one of the most stupid discussions in the photography world right now. Smartphones have won over both if the main issue is shipped units, and that’s that. How does this discussion help me to become a better photographer in any way? Why should I care why someone sold his DSLRs and bought a mirrorless system? Sounds to me a little bit like relgion how some people describe their change from a camera brand with a mirror to a camera brand without a mirror. Inoften feel that a lot of people do this to be part of a hype, which is a completely sheepish behavior. A great photographer can take awesome pictures with a D700 which is a nearly 10 years old camera. Even if DSLRs stop innovating (which they won’t), they would be useful for decades to come in the state they are today. How many megapixes does Joe Shmoe really need to satisfy his photography needs? How fast focusing? One thing that is a big question mark regards current mirrorless cameras is that they don’t seem to be built to last. The speed at which Sony is launching cameras is comparable to smartphones. Sorry, I don’t want to buy a new camera body every year, I want to focus on photography. DSLRs are reliable and durable work horses, they will still stay for a while, that’s for sure.
Kinda strong words to call something other people regard as important “stupid.”
Don, Please try to be fair: Theoria made it very clear upfront that the comment was a personal opinion — definitely not an ad hominem attack — by opening with the words “For me…”.
I think Theoria’s comment offers a refreshing perspective to the tirelessly stagnant, and increasingly annoying, mirror versus mirror-less debate.
If/when all digital cameras become mirror-less I shall upgrade my current set of Nikon FX DSLRs to a set of Nikon F6 cameras!
Theoria Apophasis, agree with most of what you’ve said, which is why I spent quite a bit of time in the opening paragraph discussing how strange some of the DSLR vs mirrorless discussions get, along with some of the myths surrounding mirrorless (i.e. being lighter, smaller, etc). Obviously, none of such discussions help in making anyone a better photographer – that’s very true – but we photographers, unfortunately often spend a lot of time talking about gear, because those are our tools we use on a daily basis. You yourself spend most of the time in your YouTube channel (which I watch every once in a while) talking about gear, because there is a lot to talk about. We have our individual preferences of cameras, lenses and accessories that impact the way we shoot, wouldn’t you agree? So on one hand, we feel that it is important to talk about it, while on the other hand, we do realize that gear does practically nothing to enhance our photography skills.
And yet when it comes to talking about things like resolution, we also get wrapped up in often pointless discussions on “how much resolution you need”, with some saying a small number and others giving their justifications for needing 50+ MP. What we don’t realize is that photography overall is a huge market – people have different needs depending on what they do. A portrait photographer could argue that they would never need more than 6-10 MP, whereas a landscape photographer would find even 36 MP to be insufficient for super-detailed, wall-size prints that will be used in a gallery. Does it mean that we can generalize these two types of photographers into a single bucket and dictate how much resolution both need? Of course not. Yes, it is true that the D700 is a phenomenal camera. I used mine for many years, until I sold it a year ago, as I found it sitting on a shelf and collecting dust. With newer and more capable tools for the work that I do (which is primarily landscapes), I found far more use in them than in my beloved D700, so it had to go.
The same goes for autofocus and other features not found on DSLRs. For some people, a single, accurate focus point is enough for everything they do. They would argue that all this hype around 400 focus points is no more than a hype, that one would never need such capabilities. And yet, many of us salivate seeing Nikon release cameras with 150+ focus points and wonder how awesome it will be to have more intelligence built into those focus points. Sports and wildlife photographers would love a camera that could nail focus every time they squeeze the shutter, so if you give them a camera that can do that, they will be willing to pay for it. Does that make such tools unnecessary and over the top? Of course not.
Every tool fulfills a need. Some love the Nikon Df (I do), while others absolutely hate it. Where does this put the Df? See what I mean?
I don’t like Sony as a company and I would rather keep all of my investment with Nikon. However, if Nikon does not want to look beyond DSLR technology, then I question its future. None of the mirrorless cameras today satisfy my particular needs, as I have stated in the article, but I see their appeal and their potential. Once you put an image through a computer, you have limitless potential and countless way to innovate. DSLRs cannot offer such intelligence. Nikon and Canon will most likely continue to innovate with their DSLRs, but aside from higher resolution sensors, better AF systems and other tweaks and extra features like WiFi + GPS, I really don’t see how they can compete with the mirrorless technology in the future.
When digital came along, many film photographers claimed that it was trash, that film would live forever. While film is indeed alive today, what percentage of photographers in the world actually use it? Less than 1% (a bit more percentage-wise if you only look purely at professionals). Labs are closing down, film manufacturers are either discontinuing or cutting down film production. Film has become a niche. Now think about why digital largely won over film? Simple: innovation. You could not innovate further with film as you could with digital. The same thing with DSLRs vs mirrorless – there is a lot more potential to innovate with the technology that is actually actively looking and analyzing the scene before capture. The discussion is not about mirror or its absence here, it is about optical vs digital way to analyze and interpret data. As the history clearly demonstrates, innovation and technology always win…
Mirrorless per se is not innovation, it is just another technology. Digital replaced film because it was more convenient in our digital age. Replacing a DSLR with a mirrorless ILC does not really offer anything new, radical, game changing. At the end it’s just digital cameras. And this is why mirrorless manufacturers are struggling just like DSLR manufacturers. The real innovation in camera tech happens somwhere else, read smartphones!
Philippe, it is not the lack of mirror like I’ve said, it is the image being projected directly on the sensor for further analysis that allows more innovation. And digital replaced film not only because of convenience – it is superior to film in every way, especially when it comes to high ISO performance.
Mirrorless offers quite a bit of new and game changing already. Lack of a secondary mirror in results in far more accurate focusing. You never need to calibrate lenses with mirrorless. You can zoom in to whatever you are shooting and check focus before you sqeeze the shutter. Aren’t these game changing already? Just wait and see, we will see even more innovation soon. As for smartphones, unless they start pushing larger sensors in them, their IQ is going to remain crappy compared to real cameras. Innovation might start with smartphones, but it does move up the chain eventually.
Nasim,
digital is not per se superior to film, it is a completely different medium that allows for different use case scenarios, whereas mirrorless is just the lack of a mirror, as you say. Having some (nice!) features like focus peaking in an EVF etc is certainly nice for some of us, but I doubt it is game changing (for the majority of the buyers). You still take the same pictures, and you still use the same workflow. If it was game changing then mirrorless would rule the shrinking camera business, just like digital did a decade ago. But it is not. We will see evolution in mirrorless and DSLR cams, I am sure, but the innovation happens elsewhere.
Philippe, I would not look at sales number as any indication – 90% of the sales account for entry-level stuff, and it is not a metric to use for judging sales. Interest in DSLRs is decreasing and the opposite is true for mirrorless. I can tell you that by the number I see on my side, based on traffic, affiliate sales and so on. If mirrorless manufacturers figured out ways to address specific concerns like battery life and AF reliability, interest in mirrorless would certainly spike. Most people resist because of existing investments, lack of a full mirrorless system and the above-mentioned concerns. It is all a matter of time, but it is building up and gaining traction.
I hope Nikon and Canon start to catch up, since they are losing time.
Nasim,
even if mirrorless sales increase and dslr numbers decrease, what does it actually mean (in a shrinking market)? Mirrorless is easier to manufacture and thus cheaper, resulting in a bigger margin, and furthermore the bodies and lenses are smaller in most cases (aps, m4/3, 1″). As you say 90% is entry level stuff, hence, this probably results in a win-win situation. Canon or Nikon will eventually sell a FF or APS mirrorless camera if the market demands it. But again, isn’t it an implementation detail that most entry level buyers don’t care about? They just want small, connected and inexpensive.
Sure, if a mirrorless camera system beats dslr as a system it will become successful. But Sony for example is IMHO successful because of their good FF sensors, IBIS, and the fact that you can easily use old lenses – not because of the lack of a mirror. But then what do I know ;-)
Anyway, once smartphone companies figured out how to integrate bigger sensors and optical zoom, then many of the mirrorless ILC manufacturers will be in big trouble…
>> Sure, if a mirrorless camera system beats dslr as a system it will become successful.
>> But Sony for example is IMHO successful because of their good FF sensors, IBIS, and
>> the fact that you can easily use old lenses – not because of the lack of a mirror
I don’t think the most interesting part of a mirrorless offering is in what is right now, but the pace of which new things are being added. For portrait photographers, eye-focus is extremely useful, and something that simply cannot be delivered in a DSLR. In fact, anything that has to do with analyzing an image before hitting the shutter button is possible in mirrorless and impossible in a DSLR. Not that I want the camera to make decisions for me, but any assistance it can render is useful and makes it easier for me to get the good shots.
DSLR advocates are still touting the advantages of the Optical View Finder. To me, after spending a year with a mirrorless body with an excellent EVF, OVF is a HUGE step backwards. I have no choice with my Canon gear, but I certainly wish they had EVFs instead of OVFs. Not all mirrorless cameras have excellent EVFs though. I know. Also, my EVF gives me an image where the Canon OVF is simply black. You can’t really take good pictures when you can not see what you are shooting, and some EVFs today can see in the dark.
Going forward, image analysis and intelligence is going to be where most of the development of cameras will be making leaps. That means mirrorless.
Having these discussions in fora like this one is useful. Without such discussions we do not learn from each other. Gear is just tools, and sure, it is not the most important aspect of getting good images. The photographer is. On the other hand, this discussion mirrors (no pun intended) exactly that from not that long ago, when many professional photographers claimed they would never switch from Ektachrome/Ilford/TriX to digital. Today, in 35mm, digital blows film out of the water quality wise.
My prediction: If the Sony A6300 has autofocus of the quality Sony claims (and that is a HUGE if, they claimed similar for the A6000) then the DSLR decline starts now. Sony will then certainly put that AF system in the A7 series, and given the call from their customers, there will be A7 or similar cameras coming out of Sony that are not all focused on size but on usability for professionals. You WILL see, soon, a Sony E-series camera sized like an 5D with a bigger battery, good weather sealing etc. Why would you then buy an inferior Canon or Nikon? Glass, obviously, but have you seen the stuff Zeiss and Sony are releasing these days? It is no secret that Zeiss simply can not manufacture their lenses fast enough to cover the demand. Not many other lens manufacturers struggle with that “problem”.
You think the focusing system alone can doom Canon and Nikon? You’re overconfident in your assessment of the consumer. Who buys a camera system just because of one feature? Very few people. Professionals will assess several aspects of a camera ecosystem, from price to quality and reliability of camera bodies and lenses, the selection of native and 3rd party lenses and accessories, the warranty, and the pre- and after service in their country or state. A lot of photographers don’t need fast focusing for example, and even if Sony’s AF would be as fast as Canon’s, how many lenses are they able to put next to Canon’s forest of telephotos?
“It is no secret that Zeiss simply can not manufacture their lenses fast enough to cover the demand.” – So you mean to say that Zeiss has a sub-par lens production? I’m not sure that is true. I think their factories are ok, for the small volume of lenses they sell, it should be good enough to fulfil the demand.
>> You think the focusing system alone can doom Canon and Nikon?
No, and that was not what I said, but perhaps I was unclear. The focusing system is what is currently dooming mirrorless solutions. At least for a portion of photography. For example sports and journalist. If Sony has, as they claim but we have not seen yet, has made an auto focus system that is on par with the high end DSLRs, then the last major hurdle for mirrorless is gone. As of now, high-speed auto focus is the main technical hurdle to clear before mirrorless can compete.
>> So you mean to say that Zeiss has a sub-par lens production?
Sigh. You can only read that from what I read by being willfully obtuse. The demand for both Zeiss Batis and Zeiss Otus is HUGE today, and Zeiss have not been able to ramp up production fast enough. Zeiss has generally been high-end niche lenses with moderate sales. With the Batis line, this has changed dramatically, and Batis is all about mirrorless.
>> for the small volume of lenses they sell
Well, the point here was that “small volume” is no longer as accurate a description of their sales. The Batis 85mm is constantly on back order, and once B&H and the like get some in they are gone. The Batis 25mm is the same. The Loxia line is a massive success, and even the Otus line sells really well, even at above $4000.
>> how many lenses are they able to put next to Canon’s forest
The focusing issues with mirrorless are systemic, and if they are not solved then mirrorless can’t compete fully against DSLRs. Ever. Which is why the next Sony will be so interesting to watch. If they get on par with Canon, then they can compete. Now, for lens line-up, this is obviously still an issue for mirrorless, but that is not a system problem, only a production-line problem, and it is easily solvable on two fronts.
1/ The growth of native lenses for mirrorless systems is phenomenal, and for some, like M4/3, the number of lenses is significantly higher than that for Canon. Specifically because if it is a Canon lens you can use it on M4/3. I use mainly Canon glass with my Panasonic GH4, for example. Given the focal reducer, my Sigma 35mm F/1.4 is insanely sharp on my GH4. The Canon 100mm macro is also fantastic on the GH4. BTW, my Canon glass can also be used on the Sony E-mount cameras.
2/ Once a system reaches a certain popularity, lenses are coming. Currently Sony and Zeiss are producing some absolutely fantastic glass for the Sony system. The Sony/Zeiss 55mm is the sharpest auto-focus lens for any camera system measured ever by DxO Mark. Now, like them or not, that’s quite interesting. Again, the Batis line up is gorgeous, and the new lenses from Sony also look promising (though a tad expensive).
It is about replacing a lot of mechanics with signal processing offf a sensor and adding a display.
Given the different development speeds of electronics vs mechanics we know which one will win.
AF by itself is not a reason to switch a camera system unless you are in a niche, such as sports and wildlife photography. We have AF for decades now, the fact that mirrorless are still struggling today to catch up with those DSLR dinosaurs is not very convincing to say the least.
The day a mirrorless system serves my needs better than a DSLR I will happily switch, because I don’t care about the mirror. I care about the camera system as a whole package, and at least today there are good reasons why Canon and Nikon own 70% of the ILC market. And I therefore believe this DSLR vs. mirrorless discussion is utterly nonsense. I’d rather see a Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony vs. Fuji vs. Oly vs. … discussion, but this won’t trigger so many hits, I guess this is why we can’t find such articles… ;)
“Digital replaced film…” Digital has largely replaced film in the consumer market, but film is still being used by enough professional photographers to keep the market thriving. No DSLR is anywhere near capable of matching a large format film.
I know, being a MF and LF film photographer myself ;-)
Pete, I know what you mean, but we are not talking about a specific niche like large format photography. Of course film still rocks there, because there is no large format digital camera out yet and even if it does come out, it will not be affordable for many years. There are many LF and MF photographers out there who use film, but they don’t fit the standard statistic of 35mm users. 35mm digital obliterates 35mm film and it is a fact, even in dynamic range. If MF digital was cheap, there would be a lot less MF film shooters left out there as well…
Thanks for the long response, good food for thought, so let me clarify some more things. First, I have to disagree with you when you say: “You could not innovate further with film as you could with digital.” That’s not true, there’s still innovation in film (for example Instax or Polaroid), but the problem is that film photography was never as large of a market than digital photography, that now includes smartphones, point and shoots, mirrorless and DSLRs for the most part – the total accessible market much much larger, and technology will always go where there’s more money. In the past 10 years the developed world completely shifted from consuming visual content on paper to consuming them on LCD screens. Not only the consumption platform as such changed, also the way we consume and create visual content changed drastically: Images are constantly being taken everywhere, young people are updating their lives on social media all the time, often several times per day. I’m sure you remember 2 or 3 decades ago how special that moment was when you received photos from the photo lab, put them in an album, and reviewed them with your family and friends. It was something to look for, it was meaningful. Now it’s all so quick and intense, and on the go – smartphones, tablets, apps, social media, and fast 3G/4G internet have completely changed our lives when it comes to content creation and consumption (at least in the developed world). I hope it slows down a bit, but those good old times are gone for good. With that said, what mirrorless are to DSLRs is not comparable to what DSLRs were to film. I know you mentioned innovation, but how can you say that a D5, a D500 or a 1D X lack innovation? Sure, these are iterations now, not revolutions, but still, DSLR technology is not standing still either. And despite that common notion, they’re still holding about 70% of the interchangeable lens market, which is in its totality shrinking by the year. I don’t see a strong indication that within this contracting market mirrorless will be able to outsell DSLRs in the future, unless Canon and Nikon completely change their DSLR systems to mirrorless. There is no hurry for that, from what my sources in the industry tell me, mirrorless sales growth is getting slower year over year, Sony has a lot of quality and service issues for example, and their price points are too high to really sell large volumes of cameras. Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic sales were never that big to begin with, Samsung is defocusing camera business as such, the rest of the vendors are insignificant. Every brand has its own set of problems. People also tend to forget that after 3 years of sales the RMA rate starts to increase, which adds to the cost and eats profits, and mirrorless vendors are starting to feel that now. If sales slow down, those profits are slowly approaching loss. In this regard Canon and Nikon still fare better than most of the others, because they have a much superior after service infrastructure, which they have built up in the past, and in a lot of countries this is much more important than “digital features” which Sony is often emphasising when they are marketing their cameras (let’s take India for example, where Nikon is by far no 1 vendor). For generations Nikon and Canon stand for quality, durability, and good service. Consumer brands like Sony and Samsung, that are driven by feature innovation, may excite geeks and hobbyists, but your average Joe Shmoe will need a little bit longer to see them in the same light as Canon and Nikon.
For me, I don’t care that much whether a camera has a mirror or not, I like the DSLR form factor, I like the fact that a camera is larger, more rugged, has a good lens and accessory selection, good reliability, and that the vendor offers a good after service. My preferred brand is Nikon, I’m invested in their lenses, and I don’t see any solid reason to make a switch to a new brand and a new system. I think Nikon should explore mirrorless technology further, and I know for a fact they are doing it, but they want to maintain the compatibility with the existing F-mount lens selection, which they see as one of the key advantages to any current mirrorless camera manufacturer. I have to chuckle every time I read comments like “If Canon and Nikon don’t launch an awesome mirrorless camera, they will be doomed”. Fact is, that won’t save them from a contracting market, it may give them a little bump temporarily, because they’d eat some share from other mirrorless vendors, but companies that have dominated an industry for so many decades don’t think just about 1 or 2 years ahead, they see decades ahead, and they’ll make a strong move when it’s the right time. Right now it isn’t.
Well said, indeed!
@Theoria Apophasis.
I fully agree. You nailed it so very precisely.
What? The X-pro2 comes with two tall boys included? Anyone want to buy my D4s?
Hi Nasim,
Thank you for a very interesting and informative article.
I have to say that I haven’t kept up on mirrorless camera developments and was poorly informed prior to reading this article and those of your other PL colleagues.
In your article, you mentioned that “Unless DSLR manufacturers find ways to convert optical analog output into digital for further analysis, mirrorless will soon surpass DSLRs in AF performance and especially AF accuracy.”
That technology is actually already with us and was used by Nikon and Canon decades ago to increase the speed of film SLRs: the pellicle mirror.
As you may recall, the use of fixed mirrors was somewhat resurrected by Sony with their “SLT technology” used in their Alpha series. Although SLT cameras use the same phase-detection system as an SLR, I don’t see any reason that the traditional PD system can’t be eliminated and the information analyzed directly on the sensor as you’ve described.
Given the improvements in low-high and high ISO performance the loss of light suffered — 2/3-stop of light on previous pellicle systems such as the Canon EOS 1n RS, if memory serves me right — would not be so much of a sacrifice given the advantages you’ve mentioned.
Regards,
Ken
I’m wondering if anyone cares about color rendition? I can’t really explain it, but I’m really happy with my Nikon system. I also have Sony on board, but I’m some how not 100% happy with the way it reproduces the colors. One can’t fix that in post. That’s the reason why I stick to Nikon. I guess Fuji’s color rendition would probably convince me as well, but its AF performance (compared to what I’m used to from my DSLR)… well…
I like my EOS-M purely because I can attach any Canon lenses to it. Also it was a very cheap body <£200 and although the AF is slow its really been a great intro to large sensor cameras for me.
Compared the weight of Nikon D810 (880 gm) with Sony A7Rii (625 gm). Difference = 255 gm. Is it such a huge advantage in real terms? Even if a professional carries two D810 cameras the extra weight is 500 gm. Most of the weight in a camera is due to the lenses of f/2.8 and wider apertures. One lens AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VRii weighs 1530 gm and the 24-70mm f/2.8 weighs 900 gm. The combined weight of these 2 lenses is 2430 gm and a D810 weight adds up to 3310 gm. When we have to carry 3.3 kg we are talking of a weight reduction of 255gm which is 7.7% reduction. Wow that 7.7% is a deal breaker??? This is not a convincing argument. For this advantage we have to make do with f/4 zoom lenses? What about resulting image quality? If we look at an image on a computer screen then we cannot tell the difference because the computer screen does not have a resolution of 36 MP. Print it to the size of an advertisement bill board and then you can easily see the difference. So high end professionals will not shift. This is marketing tricks at its best. Nobody is objectively talking about image quality. Most advantages are bells and whistles of convenience without which film photographers produce excellent true to life images. I feel like shooting film on medium format at affordable prices and forget expensive full frame digital cameras. The money saved can be invested well enough to offset the cost of developing film. Print costs are common to film and digital. Storage costs of digital are being forgotten and digital storage is less reliable than film storage. Just my thoughts….
I have a first generation M43 body and several lenses. I also own Nikon FF and DX bodies and lenses. The first generation M3 with all its disadvantages in focus, and LCD resolution gets used quite a bit and it is my go-to travel kit. I love the IQ and control that i have with the DSLRs but that M43 is a very fun camera and the small size is a big advantage when traveling and also shooting events or in a crowd. Big lenses scare people, and attract attention. Many venues ban DSLRs but allow M43 to pass as they look much less intimidating and they don’t look “professional” (big). I am thinking my next body purchase is going to be a new M43. I believe mirrorless is the future: lighter smaller, less complex, cheaper to manufacture.
Having said that the idea of Ni-canon creating mirrorless bodies for the existing lenses, negates one of the big advantages of mirrorless: smaller lighter lenses. A full mirrorless design body with an adaptor for existing lenses would make more sense to me.
It does seem a bit mental that Canon & Nikon haven’t developed Mirrorless systems & marketed them more aggressively.
Can’t quite fathom a business reason for this. Surely it would even make sense to borrow money to do this as it now seems inevitable that Mirrorless technology can overtake DSLR in the future. Certainly desireability will be there, if not already.
Mirrorless is just a trend. It’s great for gear collectors. Don’t forget, Leica didn’t go away when SLRs were invented. People always go back and forth. The collecting of camera equipment should not be confused with making pictures. Totally unrelated and anyone who has been involved in photography for decades (like me) knows that gear has always had this or that moments.
People still use 8X10 film cameras and digital Large Format rigs….why? Why don’t they use Sony A6300? It’s not just about image quality either….they PREFER THE WAY THOSE CAMERAS SHOOTS. It has always been this way and it always will be this way.
Mirrorless will replace DSLR when and if:
1)Electroic view finder is as good as optical view finder under all light conditions, that will come soon.
2)Nobody owns or cares about using the old lenses, that may take a few more generations.
I believe mirrorless will become more important than DSLRs in a few years, simply because getting rid of mechanics is easier to manufacture. As soon as Canikon enter the market using their existing mounts this shift will accelerate quickly. But mirrorless ILCs will never completely replace DSLRs because there will always be photogs that want an OVF, no matter how good EVFs will be. And if there is a market, there will be options!
“No matter how good EVFs are” is probably too strong a statement, not even if you can’t tell the difference between EVFs and OVFs?
Looking back what technologies we have today comparing to what we had 20 years ago, you have to believe that we will have EVFs that can trick your eyes thinking that you are looking through OVFs.
Photography is not about trying to “trick your eyes” though. Why would I bother taking pictures if the sole goal is to “trick” myself?
Why bother leaving the house? Just watch your screen all day….after all, 8K looks pretty real.
>> Mirrorless will replace DSLR when and if:
>> 1)Electroic view finder is as good as optical view finder under all light conditions, that will come soon.
OK, so last year? My GH4 EVF is superior in all aspects to my Canon OVFs. There is no perceptible delay, it has a “HUD” that provides far more information than is possible with an OVF, and it far superior to an OVF in low-light conditions. Now, the GH4 EVF is also surpassed by the Sony A7SII EVF, which can basically see in the dark. Where a Canon or Nikon OVF will be completely black, the A7SII EVF shows a picture that is so clear that you can easily use manual focus. Oh, and all EVFs of the past two years are vastly superior all OVFs if you use manual focusing a lot.
>> 2)Nobody owns or cares about using the old lenses, that may take a few more generations.
Not sure what you mean by this. I use almost exclusively Canon glass on my GH4. Why would my old glass prevent me from using my GH4. Depending on the “look” I am after I will use a Canon FD 50mm F/1.4, the 100mm EF L macro, the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 for Canon and some times, but less frequently, I will use an old manual focus Nikon 100mm I have on my shelf. In fact, given the excellent quality of adapters, it’s quite rare that I use native M4/3 lenses.
I am possibly migrating to Sony later this year, and I do expect to purchase some Zeiss glass at that point in time, but I don’t see a reason to get rid of my Canon L glass or the FD stuff either.
I think it would make sense for Nikon to make a mirror-less camera with an APS-C size sensor with a shorter flange distance. This could be a much smaller and lighter camera than their current DX cameras. Nikon could also make available adapters that allow use of DX and FX lenses much like the adapter that allows you to mount four-thirds lenses on micro-four-thirds cameras. This would allow Nikon to boot-strap themselves over time to a reasonable selection of mirror-less lenses. A mirror-less full-frame camera would also be possible but not be such a reduction in size and weight.
What about the consideration of additional dust and the sensor being constantly open to air on a mirrolress vs the sensor always being covered up on a dslr?
Is that a long term factor?
From what I have read, I will not be giving up my nikon dslr system anytime soon. What does interest me is the mirrorless fujifilm fixed lens camera with the 35 equivalent lens. This is the perfect travel camera. They have a great 35mm lens. Great for walking around the city and taking candids and wide enough to be very fun. So it is the perfect supplement camera to the nikon dslr system. That’s about it.
“Some cameras are already capable of recording images before the shutter is released, to avoid taking pictures of subjects with their eyes closed, and we have already seen cameras taking a picture at the moment the subject smiles. You cannot have such advanced intelligence on DSLRs, not until light continuously reaches some kind of imaging sensor.”
Why even bother taking pictures? Get a robot to do it. I for one will no longer be interested in photography should cameras become so complicated to make the photographer obsolete. I might take up painting, or basket weaving instead.
I think you are neglecting a very serious issue facing photography for the first time. PHONES. Remember all the talk about “Convergence of Photography and Video?” That was funny. While they everyone was theorizing about video being mixed with still cameras, the majority of people stopped buying point and shoots and started using the iPhones. The reality is that neither Mirrorless or DSLRs can compete with phones since most people are perfectly happy taking photos on their Samsung or Apple and uploading it to Instagram (or whatever mobile site replaces it). THAT is the real issue.
Those who carry their cameras while hiking, skiing, etc. value weight and bulk differently than do those who are not trying to cover distance on their own power.
Fifty years ago I preferred old Leica series III (and a pocket Sekonic light meter) to lugging the new Nikon and Nikkormat SLRs.
In the digital era my DSLR gear never fit well in the packs I carried, so all this investment remained home. Instead I used Canon G series shooting RAW.
Several years ago sold all my DSLR gear, and no regrets. Carry 2 or 3 Nex-7, each with a different lens (usually Sony 10-18/4, Sony 18-105/4 G, Zeiss 50/2.8 macro), and never change lenses in the field. Manual focusing with peaking is fun and useful. Never have I been so satisfied with my gear. Now it’s the Canon point and shoots which stay home, hurrah!
Nasim
thanks for all your fantastic information. Please help me decide which camera to buy, a Sony A7R ii or Leica SL?
I have sold my entire Nikon collection (small first set)and considering a Sony A7R ii or Leica SL.
Both cameras noted above are Mirrorless with superior photo quality on a Zeiss 85mm lense (Batis & Otus). Based on months of telesurfing (telescoping) and fiddling with this combination I can’t find any Camera/lense combo that speaks quality and images that are stellar. Most of my pictures will be street shots and fashion.
thanks much
Stefanie
Stefanie, I have the A7R II and I have recently had a chance to use the Leica SL. I am blown away by the latter. If budget is an issue, go for the Leica SL and don’t look back – it is an amazingly good camera in every way.
I went with the X-T1 3 years ago at release for a light travel alternative to my D700 and found the lenses to be excellent. The system has some frustrating aspects (many which have been fixed by FW updates) but has the advantage of EVF which offers some benefits over OVF to offset it’s inherent (though minuscule) lag. Overall, I’m happy and have built a decent travel system. That said, I do still seem to “miss a beat” in capturing the decisive moment when compared to using my DSLR and therefore I keep it around. I would have never gone this direction and would be completely happy with a D7200 or D5500 for travel if only Nikon had dedicated, smaller, high-quality DX primes. I would actually prefer that they keep the flange so I could use my FX lenses interchangeably when I want to. The ideal travel camera for me might actually be a D5500 form factor with the D500 tilty, flippy LCD (I don’t like the articulating LCD but do love the touch feature) with a front dial. The D5500 feels better in hand than the X-T1. Bottom line, it’s all about the lenses; I stick with Fuji mainly because of them. In fact, I’m looking forward to checking out the recently announced X-T20 which comes pretty close to that package with the addition of the touch screen although it won’t feel as good in hand.
I purchased a Sony A6000 a few years ago. I wanted to learn photography and have something I could develop for myself over the rest of my life. Often I worry that I made the wrong choice deciding between a Mirrorless and a DSLR. Although I have been able to take some great photos and I have enjoyed the process, I have often doubted the quality, clarity, and focus of many of the shots I have taken with the A6000. I am unsure as to whether this is related to the camera’s limitations, the quality of the lenses I own, some defect in the camera, or just in my skill. I suspect it is a little mix of all. Lately I have been pondering whether I should switch to a DSLR or possibly “upgrade” to a higher quality/newer Mirrorless. Your discussion of the subject of Mirrorless VS DSLR has helped great deal taming my insecurities and doubts. Considering the type of photography I do, it does not make sense to change systems. Although I do not have a “significant” amount of money invested in lenses (I only have 2 kit and 1 30mm prime lenses), I do have a good amount of time invested in understanding the A6000’s settings and how to use/change them. I was really considering the FujiFilm X-T2, but now think if I make a change, the A6500 or 6300 would be the smarter move. Thanks for your excellent articles. You are a leader in the profession and really have a way with writing that clarifies more than confuses.
Very well analysed. A ‘must-read’.
Nasim, great article. I’ve read this one to catch up after reading the article about Last Gear State (not Syndrome, agree :-)).
My .02: while I own a D7000 since 2010, and the next step I ‘was’ willing to do was the upgrade to an FX camera (aka D6xx or D7xx), two factors held me back:
– Lack of lenses I own that are suitable for FX, currently most of my glass are DX;
– Lack of real innovation, like you pointed on the Last Gear State article – besides the change from DX sensor to FX sensor, there is nothing really innovative, except for, perhaps, the D810, which is so much over my budget — amateur here.
To these two factors above, I can also add the lack of mirrorless options for my DX lenses, as one can clearly see how mirrorless (of other brands) are catching up with DSLRs, with some added benefits that are impossible to have with mirror cameras.
In a sentence: whenever Nikon starts developing and selling a mirrorless camera line fully compatible with F-mount DX lenses, the company will get my attention. Other than that, I’m in a ‘waiting’ state, with no urgent feel to replace my trusty D7000, perhaps in 2020-2021 if need arises.
Cheers,
Hi,
Thanks Nasim. A very thought provoking article.
It is indeed difficult to read the future and decide on what gear to buy and use. Technology is changing at an increasing rate. Even the big players are having trouble deciding which way to go. At least they have very different views.
As NIKON decided to drop its, almost released, DL range of product for the premium compact range, SONY was releasing the RX100V (up to 24fps stills and 1000fps video) into that same market segment. Most would suggest that this is a shrinking market segment as NIKON states, but SONY is still releasing amazing technology into that same segment, and at a premium price. Cancellation of the release and sale of the (NIKON) DL series was announced on February 13, 2017 http://www.nikon-asia.com/en_Asia/about/product_news/cancellation-dl
I am sure that there will be many interpretations of the actions of NIKON and SONY. I know this example relates to “compact cameras” but I think it shows how difficult it is to read the market right now. Has NIKON read the market correctly or is SONY creating its own market? Do we buy what best meets our needs or what is best marketed to us?
There have been times I have cursed the weight of two DSLRs and flashes by the end of a wedding. But when I have tried to do it with minimal gear, I always want something I didn’t bring. The SONY RX100V produces nice shots, especially if you pull down the RAWs and process them – quite impressive. It fits in your pocket! But would I be happy with it? Definitely not all of the time but certainly some of the time. Mirrorless to me opens up the possibilty of very high frame rates – way beyond the capabilities of any DSLR. Larger mirrorless like Sony and Fuji also bring very good image quality and performance.
Interesting times. Nothing is perfect, but there are many great options around. I just need to develop a bottomless wallet…
Its done now, the A9 has af points all over the sensor and shoots 20 FPS….
What do you think about that?