Let’s take a short break from rumors and let’s do a little bit of mirrorless Chrystal ball chat:)
Thom Hogan wrote an article about the future of mirrorless: “I’ve pretty much always had a mirrorless camera with me, as I did go from sampler to adapter. But again, as a compact camera replacement, not a DSLR replacement.“…”Yet they don’t yet really make it to DSLR replacement in my mind“…”So we’ll see Nikon, Canon, and Pentax all come into the mirrorless market, too, while Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, and Olympus redouble their efforts. These camera companies aren’t sure why mirrorless cameras are selling, but that won’t stop them from entering the market or further pushing their efforts. “…”To me, the camera companies are chasing the wrong rabbit. What users want is smaller and lighter, not ->remove the mirror box, optical viewfinder, and sophisticated focus system<-.”
Please read the full article at bythom.com (Once clicked scroll down to find the article). I know Thom Hogan is reading us so feel free to add your comments! And let us know how you see the future of mirrorless cameras:
13 Responses
I have a 1980 zenith film SLR camera, it is much smaller then all aps-c dslrs, its lens are much smaller then all dslr lens’s (ok its MF) and its FF!
and its complete Joy to USE! (much more then my EOS 40d, or GH1)
Why we just cant have a small FF body like in the film days with a digital sensor? why do we have to buy huge and bulky TANKS like 5D?
Place the mirror in, or out, couldnt care less (ok there are benefits to either way) but i would buy this camera regardless of its specs, if only somoene would produce a dslr which is similar to film slr
Zenith:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3514/4005202131_e16857a13e.jpg
Completely agree. Camera manufacturers confuse small with low spec. Maybe the success of PEN and NEX series will drive some of them to make even better small cameras.
Mirror box should be removed. Rangefinder lookalike cameras are better looking.
I love my GF1 and sold of all my Nikon equipment including a D80 and do not regret this step. For me as a amateur the mirrorless is the camera I have been looking for in years.
But in my opinion we will see both types of Cameras live a life aside each other. Mirrorless systems are great little Cameras for the Standard user but for professionals out there they are no alternative. Even though AF is getting blazingly fast (GH2) I can´t imagine a Sports photographer shooting a football match with a Nex, GF1 or a pen.
Of course it’s hot. If we can do the job better electronically, then why would we want to perpetuate the mechanical systems? Larger sensor high speed global shutters are just a matter of time. The only downside to electronic systems is the bulk and weight of batteries, but as the circuitry shrinks and the operating voltages drop, the battery demands diminish. The future of all camera systems, outside of lenses, is 100% electronic!
I sold my DSLR and lenses when I got a PEN back in 2009, and have never looked back. I still have kept my E-1 for rainy days, but that one will also retire when the Oly’s pro m43 camera comes out.
I consider myself to be the target market for mirrorless cameras. I love to take pictures and almost always have my camera with me, but I don’t have an SLR. The reason is size and weight. I almost never am actually taking pictures as my primary focus. I take pictures when I am doing something else, either to capture an event or place, or to simply capture a striking image.
It would be great if my camera would fit in a pocket, but that is not strictly necessary. The Canon Elphs just never produced what I wanted in an image. Before becoming interested in mirrorless cameras, I never realized it, but I want a larger sensor.
Bigger is always going to bet better than smaller when it comes to sensors because of physics. But it is a case of diminishing returns and trade offs. The question is how big is good enough? For some professionals, it is full frame. For people like me, the size of a “good enough” sensor has been shrinking as technology advances. We are now at the point that a 4/3 sensor is good enough for a lot of people. A sensor that size gives people like me enough ability to play with DOF to suit our needs even if won’t satisfy the pros.
So once sensor size shrinks, it opens all kinds of doors for redesigning the whole camera. The camera is not a sensor in some kind of housing and a lens. We can do almost anything with the form factor using technology.
People like me want small, but not too small. And we want big zoom lenses. I know that seems lazy to a professional photographer, but if I can snap a great picture of my son playing soccer from half a field away, that means a lot to me. Like a lot of amateurs, I frame every picture with the zoom, not caring all that much about the other changes that come with different focal lengths.
Now I suppose that I could do all this with a good compact, but until recently, there have not been any compact cameras that really give meaningful access to the control and options. The single biggest culprit is the lack of a manual zoom ring. No electronic zoom comes close to the brain-body connection of a manual zoom ring. I still pine for my Panasonic FZ-50 and Dimage A2. If the Olympus XZ-1 had a manual zoom ring, it would be close enough to what I need that I would quit looking for a few years.
Interchangeable lens cameras offer me the potential to grow my understanding and abilities more than a compact ever will. So the idea of a very small interchangeable lens came is very attractive.
Whether the camera has a mirror or not affects size, but it not itself a big issue for me. I see advantages and disadvantages to both optical and electronic viewfinders. Getting rid of the mirror is a means to an end, but not an end itself.
So as taken as I am with the GH-2, the point is that it is still too big. For example, the GH-2 is actually slightly larger than the Pentax K-r on a dimensional basis. The K-r does weigh 50% more, and the GH-2 has way better video, but we’re not talking apples and oranges.
The new Pentax camera is interesting, but it may even be too small. Time will tell. But the disadvantages of a smaller system do not outweigh the advantages as long as the image is good enough.
I see no way that DSLRs will disappear. There are too many people for whom a 4/3 sensor is not good enough. And scaling the technology up will not be totally cost prohibitive. Entry level DSLRs may go away because the people who buy them are probably a lot like me.
To borrow Thom Hogan’s phrase, I think dslr makers have been “chasing the wrong rabbit” for 10 years or so. To my eyes the typical APS-C dslr is as big as my old Pentax MX, with a smaller viewfinder and much of the weight is taken up by a motor wind system I don’t want. Modern slrs come in three sizes, large (APS-C) extra large (35mm) and enormous (medium format).
I find it sad that Nikon and Canon don’t seem interested in trying to make a full frame slr that is anywhere near the size and weight of the Leica M9. It really ought to be possible for companies with their resources, but they seem to assume that everyone wants a 9 frame per second motor drive. When I’m walking in the hills in Snowdonia I want something light, I don’t need the motor wind- the hills aren’t moving that quickly. It’s a big is beautiful policy that has put me off getting a dslr long enough for micro four thirds to come along and take my fancy and I’m sure it has put others off buying slrs as well.
The comment from Frosti7 above reminded me that I started out around 1980 with a Zenith E and I had a look at an old one recently at a camera fair. They are heavy cameras but quite compact and, as said above, the ground glass screen in the viewfinder is pretty good.
I have never been able to reconcile my experience when looking through the viewfinder of APS-C cameras with the claims of many writers they are intrinsically preferable to an EVF.
I won a Bronica RF645 and I think it’s a great shame that there is no mirrorless medium format digital on the market. In a MF camera the movement of the big mirror causes a lot of vibration and its removal would make the camera much smaller (compare a Pentax 6×7 to a Mamiya 7) In the film era you had twin lens reflex as well as a range of rangefinder MF cameras and it would be nice to see a bit more diversity in the digital era.
While I don’t think mirrorless cameras will ever completely replace slrs, the moving mirror has never been less essential for taking pictures and will hopefully become rarer in future.
the size of dSLRs is a factor of the motor and the battery … to make a next generation D700 and 5D it will be more cps and better battery life (apple did the brave thing with the 15″ laptop and made he battery fixed, therefore used the clip and connector space for more battery – okay they didn’t screw up the weight)
the PEN has a 3 fps shutter … which is plenty fast enough
is mirror less hot = yes
but there is nothing like seeing through a big full-frame optical SLR viewfinder! it would be wonderful to see an Olympus OM-3ti in digital but can you imagine the critique it would get for having a 2fps shutter. we used to winder the shutter with a crank or bolt on a huge battery pack to wind it for us (at volume!)
the 5D will evolve, get more fps, more iso, more headline grabbing tag lines … it would still be cool to see a 3D smaller, slower version for people who don’t shoot sports or animals. a studio shooter using hot lights might use a fee fps, but anyone on strives has to wait for the recycle time and shooting single frame!
“we used to winder the shutter with a crank or bolt on a huge battery pack to wind it for us (at volume!)”
…but I didn’t fit a 2 fps autowind or 5 fps motor drive to my Pentax MX because I didn’t need or want one.
I would be more interested in something like the “Canon 3D” you describe, say a 2 fps drive, to try to keep the thing as small and light and quiet as possible, but neither Canon or Nikon show any sign of producing such a camera.
The Leica M9 shows it is possible to make a digital camera that isn’t twice the size of a film camera of the same format, but in the professional slr world there seems to be a big is beautiful attitude.
Which article is it? I searched many pages at bythom for “mirrorless,” I find none.
I for one think that mirrorless will without a douth take oer the traditional SLR mainly because you simply do not need a mirror any more and the current DSLR’s have proven that with their liveview abilities. the only issue that they have to conqure will be making an EVF that will live up to the standards of the OVF of the current and past. frankly I do not think that this will be all that hard if the bigger companies apply thier resources to the issue. currently owning a panasonic G3 and a canon 7D I can safely say that the G3 is not that far behind the current top crop of DSLR’s when it comes to image quality but the view finder does leave a bit to be desired (though not too much). the one thing i do not like with my 7D is the mirror slap on my longer exposures for my night time landscape photography. I use my liveview feature for that just because of the mirror slap issue.
If a company is willing to spend the money on making a mirrorless camera of any sensor size (with-in reason of course) at a professonal level I feel that it would be a big step in the right direction for all camera aimed at the amature and professional. I for one would like to see a large bodied mirrorless, something like the size of my 7D. The size and the weight of the camera works well when trying to handhold lover exposures.
So Yes mirrorless is VERY HOT! right now and i certainly hope it is the future of highend photography.
Simplexityphoto