When compared to mirrorless cameras, DSLRs by design have some inherent 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 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 also had to match the size of the mirror, making the top part 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 size 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 look.
- 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 translates to lots of wasted space that needs to be covered.
- 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: DSLR cameras produce quite a bit of noise thanks to the shutter mechanism coming up and down each time an image is captured. This mirror slap not only results in noise, but also in 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 audible. 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 mirror-induced vibrations.
- 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. For example, 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 for a service center.
- No Live Preview via OVF: when looking through an optical viewfinder (OVF), it is impossible to see what the final image is actually going to look like. You have to look at the camera meter (which can be fooled in some situations) or the LCD in live view mode and adjust the exposure accordingly.
- Secondary Mirror and Phase Detection Accuracy: you might already know that all DSLR cameras with phase detection autofocus system 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. 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 lots of FPS and 4K video. 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? More in-camera editing options? Specific features for different types of photography? 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. In short, mirrorless cameras can be made noticeably 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 practically dead, 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 older compact 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 gravitate towards lighter and more compact, especially if quality is not compromised significantly.
- 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 mechanism is all you hear from the camera.
- Less Camera Shake: the only physical component in the mirrorless camera that can cause vibrations is the camera shutter. And even then, it is possible to use electronic front curtain shutter (EFCS), or even disable the shutter completely and shoot with electronic shutter to completely get rid of camera shake from the shutter mechanism.
- Easier to Clean: if dust ends up on the sensor, cleaning mirrorless cameras is easier than DSLRs. You do not need a fully charged battery to lock up the mirror in most cameras – the sensor is exposed once you dismount the lens (some cameras with in-body image stabilization should have their stabilization mechanism locked via camera menu to prevent movement and damage). 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 and sensor are fully cleaned.
- Potentially 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 and viewfinder blackout.
- Cheaper to Build and Support: less moving parts translate to lower cost of manufacturing and support for the manufacturer.
- Live Preview (WYSIWYG): with mirrorless, you can get a live preview of what you are about to capture – basically “what you see is what you get” (WYSIWYG). 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 potentially cheaper than producing DSLRs. As of today, most mirrorless camera manufacturers charge heavy premiums for their camera systems, because their overall costs are high and the volume is not there yet. While the actual manufacturing costs are lower than DSLRs, companies have to spend plenty of R&D money on improving particular camera features, autofocus performance and other technologies like EVF. Overtime, mirrorless camera prices will come down.
- 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, 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 mostly 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 is it 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 bright 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 can use the viewfinder for reviewing images instead.
- Focus Peaking: a very useful feature that allows one to see what areas of the frame are in focus. 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 cannot 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 on a subject 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 a picture. Pretty much every mirrorless camera is 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 smartphones and 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? Many camera manufacturers are already doing this very efficiently on their mirrorless 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 is lifted. Contrast-detection has already been possible anywhere on the imaging sensor, but now most new mirrorless cameras have also added the ability to focus via on-sensor phase detection, with focus points distributed over most of the sensor, all the way to the extreme borders.
- 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 – something already possible on many mirrorless systems. Even 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 at pixel-level and there is no real autofocus area to concentrate on, subject tracking can potentially get very advanced and sophisticated with mirrorless cameras.
- Eye Damage: when looking through a viewfinder, one has to be extremely careful about photographing extremely bright sources of light (such as 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 particularly responsive, resulting in considerable lag. While this is certainly a nuisance compared to OVF at the moment, it is a matter of time before this 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 detection has already reached very impressive levels on mirrorless cameras, they are still relatively weak in continuous autofocus performance and subject tracking compared to phase detection AF. However, with the rise of hybrid autofocus systems and their continuous development (where both contrast and phase detection are used together), we have already seen mirrorless cameras with incredible continuous autofocus capabilities. Soon enough mirrorless cameras will fully catch up and surpass DSLR cameras in AF performance.
- Battery Life: another disadvantage of mirrorless cameras at the moment. Providing power to LCD and EVF continuously takes a toll on 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 who 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 (and we have already seen much better battery life on the third iteration of Sony A7-series cameras). Batteries will be more powerful and power-hungry LCD / EVF screens will be replaced with other 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 shades of gray. 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 very soon. However, it simply does not make sense for manufacturers to continue investing into making DSLRs better, when the technology advantage is clearly with mirrorless.
4. 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 “newer and bigger are 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. Some of the mirrorless systems haven’t fully matured yet and they might have a relatively limited selection of lenses. The same goes for specific accessories that might exist for DSLRs, but not yet for mirrorless cameras.
However, things are changing fast. If a couple of years back mirrorless systems had a 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.
5. 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. For portrait photography, many mirrorless systems have already surpassed DSLRs in AF performance and accuracy, thanks to specific features such as eye tracking. Cameras like the Sony A9 have already demonstrated that mirrorless can even compete with DSLRs for shooting fast action. It is a matter of time before we see very complex AF implementations that DSLRs will not be able to compete with. For example, some cameras are already capable of recording images before and after 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.
6. Future 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, 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 autofocus systems alone, thanks to advancements in display technologies and on-sensor data analysis.
7. Conclusion – Are We There Yet?
While mirrorless is definitely advancing fast, there are some real issues that still need to be addressed. Better battery life, more reliable autofocus systems (particularly for shooting fast and unpredictable action), larger buffer, better lens choices (especially super telephoto and tilt-shift lenses) and improved EVFs 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.
What do you think about this? Please share your thoughts below!
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.
The beauty of the DSLR has always been that you can actually see through the lens you are using; seeing what the lens sees.
It was the only way to make framing correct even with a telelens.
Some say the most beautiful FF viewfinder is found in the nikon F3, but even my 20 year old nikon F100 has still a better optical viewfinder than my D850.
What happened?
Because of the importance of AF the mirror used is half translucent, and has become more translucent over the years.
For the same reason a split-focussing screen cannot be used anymore. ( must say i never liked that anyway)
So a DSLR body made specific for manual focussing would have a far nicer optical viewfinder to look through and would make it also easier to put find the right focus. I would love to try such a camera, but it does not exist.
My D610 has grid lines. It does not have a split prism for manual focusing on the screen itself but it also allows for focus peaking.
I just bought the D610 as my primary use camera is an F4. I have a few too many F mount lenses to justify a switch. I could use a Z camera but by the time I add adapters and such, what is the advantage of the mirrorless system again? If it is bulk, well, that went out the window. If I were a ‘pro’ shooting a ‘pro’ body, mirrorless would be more attractive but I am not so the smallest full frame sensor body Nikon has fits my needs perfectly.
And yes, I have had 2 years of experience with an OMD EM10 and it was a great camera but fell short on a few too many things so I went back to DSLR.
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.
> We don’t mind the size and the grip of the DSLR.
Who is this we of which you speak? It certainly does not include. I loathe the size of the average modern DSLR and I don’t have Yeti-sized hands.
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.
Agree with your comments. Nowadays a lot of people approach photography as tech (sensor, noise, corner sharpness, MTF charts, Megapixels), or a set of guild lines (rule of third, negative space, leading lines, patterns), and worse, bookkeeping and computing (Terabytes of storages, 8 core computers). When we look at the great photos of the masters, and try to relate, there’s no relation with any of these things. When I started as a photo enthusiast, I had two sets of full frame cameras, one from Canon and one from Nikon, I have numerous L lenses from Canon and pro lenses from Nikon. I spent after work hours looking at gear reviews, lens tests. I care about lens sharpness above all else, I was scared to use high ISO, I was looking for lines, patterns when photograph. But after I turned to a pro travel photographer, my primary gear has been a Fuji XT1, plus 2 lenses: 16-50, 50-230. These are Fuji’s cheapest lenses and happened to be having the best feature: light weight and small size. I could get better photos with less great equipment, simply I could walk further, raise my camera faster, and be more stealthy. Recently, I began experimenting with shooting only JPEG. The Fuji was set with DR400 to limit over exposure and shoot only JPEG. That will eliminate post-processing altogether. That will leave my photography to purely story telling.
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.
I agree with MC For me I find that a few prime lenses considerably reduces the weight issue that many may complain about. I think a lot depends on what kind of photography you indulge in. For me land and city scapes so no real problem. I personally like a larger camera that I can grip on.
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.
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. 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… ;)
I would not jump to the conclusion that DSLR is being defeated, not just yet. Nikon has launch another round of a new mirrorless system. In a way I agree with Philippe, to me it is like a different gear, it is not point and shot, it is DSLR, it is somewhere in the middle. I look at it as a different product rather than something to replace DSLR, I am sure a lot of people hold the same point of view. Nasim talk about the digital can capture better photos, sorry a lot of people only want take photos, they don’t even know the different between jpeg and RAW, sometimes too high tech not necessary better in the market.
“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!
I agree with both your posts. I could make many points but I’ll stick with just one — the unfortunately chosen first sentence of the article: “When compared to mirrorless cameras, DSLRs by design have some inherent limitations”.
In case my point is unclear, the article could have started out: “When compared to DSLRs, mirrorless cameras by design have some inherent limitations”. That would not have made it better though. Both sentences imply a judgement that indicates a biased article instead of one fairly comparing the pros and cons of each. That’s what often seems stupid about these discussions, that one is “better” than the other. I suspect Nasim didn’t mean it that way, but that’s certainly how it started out.
What mirrorless camera do you recommend!
Amen!
Theoria, I couldn’t agree more. If you know how to take great images, that is far more important than having the latest mirrorless tech.
Personally I prefer to look through an OVF and I think a lot of people do that. Nasim is mentioning that young people need mirrorless tech to be exited. I don’t think so. Most young people I see when travelling use cheap DSLRs that provides the best price / IQ performance ratio.
Very thorough article, Nasim. Every potential buyer should read this before considering going mirrorless.
I switched, and so far I really like my Z7.
I just wish I didn’t have to go through yet another overhaul to my lens fleet. When I switched to DSLR from film I had to buy DX lenses. Now, again, I have to abandon DX in favor of lenses that fit the new mount. All this while staying in the same Nikon ecosystem, not changing brands. Its an expensive exercise. Yes, I can use my DX glass with an adapter on a Nikon Z7, but its a crutch. Carrying extra piece around is not fun, not to mention the hassle of attaching it to different lens every time. If Nikon goes medium format we will be forced to deal with yet another configuration. Next wave of innovation will bring similar headaches if manufacturers don’t think this through a bit more carefully.
My $0.02.
How are you liking your Z7?
I have DLSR D90 which is beginning to have mechanical issues and I only have 1 lense.
I primarily shoot birds and wildlife and was going to get the D500 and 200-500 lens. Then at the store I felt just how heavy that combination is.
Another customer told me to check into mirrorless (I had never considered) which brought me to this article
Since most of my shooting is birds/wildlife I want to know how the AF is.
Thanks so much!
The article fails to mention some important advantages of DSLRs over mirrorless cameras. In particular:
1) Current mirrorless cameras can’t cooperate with AF illumination targets projected by external strobes (flashguns), which significantly limits their responsiveness in dark spaces: www.dpreview.com/artic…era-offers
2) The fact that EVF is a pretty strong light source (a small monitor shining right into your eye) is a real problem when you photograph and move about in the dark, e.g. when shooting the night skies, because it messes with the night adaptation of the eyesight. You won’t be able to appreciate the night scenery with your naked eye if you’ve just been blinded by EFV.
3) There are a number of new scientific reports warning of the long-term damaging effects of closely watched LCD screens (especially the blue light) on the human eyesight. They talk of real risk of irreversible blindness appearing decades later.
4) You can’t observe the scene for an extended length of time with your eye to the EVF, it will kill the camera’s battery. This is especially important for bird spotters and other nature photographers etc. And no, they don’t want to replace the battery every 15 minutes–they may miss the moment and/or scare off the wildlife. With OFV, you don’t even need to switch on the camera to observe the scene.
5) Constant live-on of mirrorless cameras heats up the sensor and other components, which, coupled with less space to dissipate the heat, increases the noise in the images (e.g. compare performance of similar sensors on Nikon vs Sony).
6) Phase detection on sensor degrades dynamic range (Canon), and can cause banding (as in Nikon and Sony).
I regularly shoot with both a DSLR and a mirrorless, but I find taking photos with my DSLR much more enjoyable and productive.
Can I add that I have the bad feeling about sensor material evolution with the so called ‘MILC revolution’ ?
We are still living with CMOS + BAYER CFA, and mirrorless camera still have technical struggles using this ‘fast tech’.
We already know there exist better sensor designs, able to boost what really account : accutance !
FOVEON was flawed by design (light lossed to reach 2nd and 3rd stacked layer), but you can get the idea. Fuji SuperCCD crushed the classical BAYER CCD and CMOS in term of DR in thoses 2002-2005 days.
I am baffled how many are unable to understand our actual 24 to 45Mpixels sensors are in reality only 45M photosites sensors, using Bayer RGGB pattern interpolation to get the final file, nowhere they are real 24 to 45M RGB pixels, whatever excellence we managed to improve BAYER/X-Trans interpolation !!!
And the funniest part is that we get SONY and other praising the ‘pixel shifting’ in order to get a better accutance, trying to make real RGB light capture per photosite at the huge cost of time shifting !
I am sure SONY and other sensor creators already have better sensor design, but as the tech is too slow to sustain a 60fps stream to sport a video feature or an EVF, we will have to wait for decades before we could get our hands on better sensor design.
Even worse, the Adobe lame and sluggish support for innovative sensor (see X-trans or SuperCCD support), and 4k/8k video support are both holding better photosensor back !!!
SONY is only releasing new tech geared to make faster sensors, ok, they are built with higher photosite counts, and better noise control design… But everything has been geared toward making high Mpx moviecam sensor with onboard OSPDAF, boasting faster EVF stream, and permiting faster fps…
To make it short : speed, speed, speed, again speed and a little better DR at higher ISO and dual gain amplification from Aptina… But nowhere do we get better accutance, nor see the end of monochromatic light dreaded fall in resolution (did you recently tried a RED color only lighting ? even worse with blue ? I had those problems in my golden age of nightclub photography, still not seen any improvment in actual SONY sensor design).
I already hear mirrorless lovers whine bragging ‘pixel shifting’, but pixel shifting would never be practical for street, portrait, sports and all other moving/living photography.
And SONY could deliver an Alpha 9 MkII at 40fps it would not gives us any improvment but only huge amount of pics where AI would be an absolute need to sort the best one (but would it be really the right shot ?).
Slower sensor tech already exist, and only dSLR could bring them to users as dSLR are only using the sensor a few time per second. Only dSLR do not have to cope with cooling subsystem nor continuous live stream to feed an EVF. And all theses MILC constraints are already limiting the tech for what really is needed to photographer. And sorry, I don’t buy the SONY religion that a videocamera is what photographers are needing. Making photography and video are absolutly not the same job, nor have the same constraints. Video in our dSLR is just a conveniency (?), not the purpose.
Hi Nasim,
I am an older photographer and have used mostly Nikon gear over the years.
As my eyesight started to diminish with age, I found looking at the rear display on a DSLR, to verify the result of an image, becoming more difficult.
A few years ago, I made the choice to move to mirrorless, the Sony A7r and have never regretted my decision.
Being able to see results in a quality EVF is far superior to checking results on the back of a DSLR.
My main hesitation in changing systems, was all my Nikon lenses now being manual focus, however the magnification facility and focus peaking on mirrorless cameras make it extremely easy to achieve excellent focus results.
My biggest regret is that Nikon took so long to introduce a decent mirrorless system.
With a couple of quality Sony lenses and my older Nikon lenses via an adapter, I can’t see me ever going back to Nikon.
I think your comment, re “Nikon not looking beyond DSLR technology as not the way future”, is spot on.
Regards, John Taylor.
One of the biggest disadvantages of buying into a mirrorless system as per me is the price of the camera & more so the lenses.
Just compare the price any complete mirrorless system to that of Nikon d5600 double lens kit + ultrawide + standard prime also added. Nikon kit costs at most half the mirrorless equivalent with comparable or maybe even better image quality. The size & weight are also similar.
I just came back from a photo tour in China, i still remembered when we have a portrait photography session in a dim room, few of the Sony Mirrorless users from our group keep shouting to say they machine can’t focus properly.
Thanks God…I am still using obsolete DSLR …
Hi,
I find the discussion superfluous! Whether DSLM or DSLR is the personal decision of the individual photographer.
Generally better or worse is not possible! Photo cameras and photo lenses are tools for me. They should work, that’s all.
I have the impression that at the moment the DSLM is very hyped. For me, a D850, a D750, a D500 and a D5 cannot be replaced by a Z7 or a Z6.
I’m convinced that after a while photographers will come back to it and just take pictures, no matter what system they use.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
Nasim, this article is uncharacteristic of you and disappointing. The title “DSLR vs Mirrorless Cameras” lead me to believe you would be presenting pros and cons about each. The opening photo should have given me a clue as the two body styles are apples and oranges. Using a smaller crop sensor camera (without EVF) and no lens in comparison with a larger full frame body with a fast lens mounted is clearly designed to bias first impressions. Then the article starts with a section on “DSLR Camera Limitations” most of which I think are straw men for the average user.
After that you follow up with “2. Mirrorless Camera Advantages, followed by “Mirrorless Camera Limitations”
I double checked and no, there isn’t a section for DSLR Advantages or a part for the future of DSLRs.
This is not in reality a comparison article as much as it is a puff piece for Mirrorless.
I am disappointed
Not only that all of the Mirrorless camera limitations are completed by saying in the future this limitation will be overcome, even when from a physics standpoint this is impossible. A really biased article. Besides, if I put my Nikon 80-400mm lens on one of the Nikon Z cameras how weight difference will there be as a percentage. Not to mention how will the camera support the weight of this 56 ounce lens?
I have to endorse many of the points made here: the shifting demographics of the culture means that digital imaging devices are ubiquitous and readily available- even the relatively impoverished in the third world have a mobile phone. This has coincided with a rise of both a variety of self-centered and almost narcissistic need to document every waking moment of our lives, along with a diminution of the process of image making and the effort taken to be literate in the aesthetic value of the still image. Visual social media platforms like Instagram mean that images are seen on a mobile phone with a normally brief, sound bite level of attention. A like might be afforded to an image with a viewing time of less than a second and then the viewer / consumer moves on. In my work of stage photography (photographylife.com/stage…raphy-tips), I am of course interested in mirrorless for a number of the advantages mentioned in this excellent article, especially the ability to shoot silently. However I’ll wait for Nikon to add a second memory card slot and battery grip to perhaps a second generation mirrorless. For now, my DSLR cameras are more than adequate.
Far more challenging than any technical issue for me are the politics, territorialism and sheer competitiveness of the photography space. Unfortunately, a by product of the ubiquity of the digital imaging device seems to be the dumbing down of photography as art. My competitors are what I describe as mass production, shopping mall photographers: they take static and more or less banal posed shots under flat, two dimensional lighting. The subjects are invariably smiling brightly and the images have all the artistic value of a mug shot. Nonetheless, that’s what people buy in droves. I’m not understating the importance of technological advancement, however I think there needs to be a clear demarcation between a random selfie and a photographic art work, and the trend seems to be a continued blurring of the ability of the average person to discriminate between the two.
Nasim, the DSLR vs Mirrorless camera argument aside, I read your comments above that you left two years ago. Even though those are old comments, I am disappointed that you would make irresponsible and untrue statements about film like that.
Hi Nasim,
I understand that the point of this essay is to demonstrate that the future of mirrorless technology is an open road with endless possibilities for innovation, and the future of DSLR is approaching the end of its road where there is little possibility for innovation. I hope this is not so. I love my DSLR and there are many features of mirrorless that will keep me away, such as the EVF. I suppose that is because I remember the time before OVF and don’t want it back. And what has been said about EVF is more than enough to repel me – the too bright colors primarily. The other unattractive things are what most complain about – unappealing body shape and size, low battery life, all new lenses, and so on. Anyway, I am committed to DSLR having bought the D850 only a year ago. What I have next to say is a gripe.
I have lately been exhausted by the overabundance of gear review articles on this site. I like gear articles, but there seems to be little other content anymore. There are endless mirrorless brands being reviewed. May I suggest sticking to the best three – Nikon, of course, I hope this goes without saying. Then pick what you think are the next best, say Fuji and Sony, and stick with those. And please, I beg you, no more cell phone camera reviews. That is just too much altogether. The silly people who think phone photography will replace cameras just leave me tired. Next, limit the articles. At the present moment, there is the announcement, the wishlist, the pre-release, the release, the testing review, the field review, the comparison with other cameras multiple reviews, and then the wishlist for what everyone feels was left out. Perhaps, like in the old days, a small selection of these topics could be enough. All this applies for lenses, too, because the list of lenses is endless. One could have a full time blog these days just for gear review. I’d rather see a greater number of photography articles (what I call content essays) show up again to help us all become better photographers, which I think is the real intent of this website. And for those who will tell me that I just don’t have to read the reviews, that would be fine if there could be content essays that come alongside and with more frequency. And to just say it, no I don’t want to find another site, I am committed to this one. HA!
Thanks for letting me gripe, Nasim. I know I am fighting the tide. Sigh.
If you are ‘committed’ to this website, then why are you griping? That makes no sense. Sounds like a bad marriage to me.
Nasim I read this old article and like others think it is not up to your usual standard. You are sounding like the historian saying that history is dead. It is perfectly obvious that cameras will evolve greatly in future and whatever is extolled now may well Old hat soon enough. Quite simply I am not a fan of EVFs for all of the reasons others have mentioned. Cameras and lenses are just tools and not personal jewellery. I am delighted with my D850 D500 combination as a landscape, events, nature, travel photographer. Yes sometimes a bit heavy but then Nikon never did release the wide DX primes……. my view is that Nikon will continue to develop its professional DSLRs and associated lenses for a long time to come. I have considered a number of mirrorless options but not been tempted as yet. One thing you did not mention is the convoluted menu system on all of the ones I have looked at.as yet. The issue of focusing with flash is a complete deal breaker for me as are the artefacts due to on sensor focusing. I agree that mirrorless will keep growing for a while yet but I won’t be getting one any time soon.
I’m new to RAW. I bought Sony because someone I trusted told me Canon would never go mirrorless on Full Frame. Now is winter and it gets dark at 15:00. Yesterday I was not able to get out before 16:30, and I shot my last image at 16:56, when it was almost pin dark, at f2.8 and 12800 iso handhold. I was able to frame my images thanks to the EVF, and converting them to B&W I got really nice images in spite of very poor conditions. With my old 70d I could not have taken these images handhold: permaliv.blogspot.com/2018/…e-tur.html
Hi. Your photos are lovely.
Which Sony model do you own and how do you think it would do for birds and wildlife photography? Is yours a full frame?
Thank you
I’m new to RAW. I bought Sony because someone I trusted told me Canon would never go mirrorless on Full Frame. Now is winter and it gets dark at 15:00. Yesterday I was not able to get out before 16:30, and I shot my last image at 16:56, when it was almost pin dark, at f2.8 and 12800 iso handhold. I was able to frame my images thanks to the EVF, and converting them to B&W I got really nice images in spite of very poor conditions. With my old 70d I could not have taken these images handhold!
This was a double comment. You can delete this. I posted again because it didn’t show up, and I thought you didn’t accepted links.
From my perspective, the Fuji X-T2 I purchased at the end of the summer is a much better camera — from image quality, performance and ergonomics perspective — than the Nikon D5100 I owned and the D500 I rented.
Now let’s just get back to taking photos.
Can I ask what type of photography you do and why you chose the Fuji X-T2?
I am trying to decide which brand/model to go with.
So looking for thoughts and opinions of current mirrorless users.
I predominately shoot birds and wildlife
Thank you
DSLR are the PAST. In fact are as old as analog reflex cameras. Totally crap.
Mirrorless is the present and it has so much potential, that there isn’t any possible comparison between mirrorless and DSLR.
In fact, it seems incredible that some people are talking about it, nowdays.
EVF is a non-starter for me, no matter how much better they get.
EVF is a non starter perhaps for you, but for a lot of people… It allows eye focus, face focus, not micro-af problems, not sunshine in your eyes…
As I said before, DSLR are already dead, although someone don’t want to believe it.
Believe it or not but there are people that preffer/like to look at OVF and not EVF. Even if in your opinion they are better.
I don’t understand people who constantly moaning how DSLR’s are crap.
If you want ML, go get one, start making pictures and let others decide by themselves.
The weight advantage of mirrorless systems is just plain dumb.
I will give mirrorless a consideration when they can reduce the weight of a 800mm f5.6 lens from 4.6 kg to 1.5 kg.
I am sure by then Einstein and Newton will personally rise from their graves and bow before mirrorless cameras.
Hi Nasim,
As usual great article!
One of the biggest concerns I have with mirrorless is ergonomics. I can’t understand why everyone wants to make and own small bodies. Too small bodies.
They are not comfortable to hold. I currently use a D850 and it feels like a dream in my hands. The best mirrorless system I’ve experienced in terms of ergonomics are the Z6 and Z7. I haven’t had a change to hold an EOS R so I can’t comment on that body. But non of the mirrorless cameras I’ve had in my hands can’t compete (by far) with my D850.
I’m not ready to switch to mirrorless just yet.
Pascal
Thank you for your article, Nasim.
However, being a die-hard DSLR userr (Canon 1D-line bodies), I must say that I’d have to disagree with a lot of your mostly specification-based statements.
Here my random thoughts, some of which I believe I’d addressed in the past:
Let start with the simple: despite the proliferation of never-ending miniaturization of modern-day camera, human hands haven’t undergone such an evolutionary “down-sizing”. So, larger hands still require comfortable larger body and there’s no way around it. Large-scale sales of hand-grips for many miniaturized cameras is a proof to my point.
Then, DSLRs don’t have uncomfortable “front-heavy” issues, when paired with larger glass as they are well balanced.
Larger pro-bodies have 1-botton/1-function designs, whereas with mirrorless you often have to lose yourself in the maze of menus and sub-menus just to locate often-used functions. Many of them are treated as an after-thought by the developers.
Frequently, rushed, poorly designed and not fully tested in the field bodies wind up in the hands of those, who fell for all the hoopla about their specs on paper.
Specs are NOT everything.
(Some very reputable companies, for example, produce poorly tested mirrorless cameras that unexpectedly shut down for no reason due to being overheated with manufacturer-suggested “workarounds” like advising users to turn off their screens. Huh???? With the bodies that cost around $3K+??? No wonder many users opted to return these marvels, not yet ready for a primetime.)
Batteries:
Battery life on my DSLR is around 2700 shots, dwarfing the laughable 250-300 shots on a typical EVF-based mirrorless. Now, if DSLRs are so dated and mirroless are so advanced, which out of two will most likely get the shot? 2700 or 300?
The size of the photosites on a DSLR sensor is no match to super-high megapixeled/ densly-packed tiny marvels of modern technology, Smaller sensors produce more noise and poorer colors – it’s a fact of life and the law of physics.
Assisted photographic skills?
Akin to a synthesizer with a built-in music auto-arranger, photographic skills of a photographer now take a back seat to a pre-programmed and therefore pre-determined pre-programmed “average” outcomes, that are considered ‘mainstream’ and therefore “popular”. (Turn to any image hosting site for a myriad or clones of surgically-perfect processed sunsets and/or waterfalls and/or landscapes that don’t move anyone anymore).
With “assisted photography”, both individuality and creativity die. There are only 3 parametes: ISO, Av & Tv. That is all. What you make of them is called knowledge and skills and creativity.
Frame speed limitation with DSLRs?
Realistically, how many photographers need speeds past 10-14 frames/sec.? If you need more, you are a videographer and you need to switch to 4K video mode.
Live Preview via OVF:
Despite advancements in screen technology, composing images on the back screen isn’t always ideal solution vs. VF – that’s why pro photographers still love and use OVF.
DSLR prices too high? So are Steinway baby grands vs baby toy pianos.
You pay for quality and no one said photography is a cheap “hobby”.
It’s the same with the DSLR bodies as with top quality lenses: there are no workarounds.
Quality costs more! Wanna play – be prepared to open your wallet.
Expecting more “exciting new developments” in the future with mirrorless cameras?
Once again, by adding more gizmos to the process of photography, you kill originality and remove all the fun of the human decision-making out of photography: computer will always compensate one’s shortcomings. Plus, one will never make mistakes and will never learn from them. (Think pen & paper vs. calculator: who knows math better?)
By the same principal, learning to play classic piano in an “academic way” is no longer required, as there’ll be artificial “crutches” of auto-arrangers that will over-compensate for the lack of playing skills.
Photography is about creating – not letting a computer decide for you.
Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams and a host of many other world renowned film-based photographers never used even 1/100TH of technology modern day hand-held computers, (aka DSLR/mirrorless/smart phones) offer, so I doubt DSLRs will be phased out anytime soon, even if their specs on paper don’t measure up to mirrorless.
Same with the megapixel wars: it stopped.
Bottom line: there are good photographers and the bad ones.
The good ones will consistently outperform the bad ones even with the 6MP older cameras.
As for “advantages” of mirrorless, for some it’s quite questionable.
And on a purely human level, there’s something unique about sheer physicality of holding a larger, responsive camera with equally large & heavy lens, while tracking an object through OVF and nailing a perfect shot.