Until now there was no “standard” to define mirrorless system cameras. We had plenty of different definitions like:
– Digital Interchangeable Lens System Cameras (DILSC),
– Electronic Viewfinder with Interchangeable Lens (EVIL).
– Mirrorless System Cameras (MSC),
– Compact System Cameras (CSC),
– Digital Single Lens Mirrorless (DSLM).
But at last the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) decision recognized “Mirrorless” as the official term for interchangeable lens cameras that do not include a mirror mechanism!
Amazing it took seven years to sort this out 🙂
Source: http://www.ce.org/Consumer-Info/TechnologyGlossary.aspx
12 Responses
I thought we stopped naming things for what they aren’t decades ago. Oh well, let me get in my horseless carriage and get to my meeting. Let me look at my handsless watch to ensure I arrive on time … I’ll have to call ahead on my wireless phone!
That’s hardly funny. Everything needs a name, and often the name arises from the context, not from the substance.
For example, take the “SLR”. And now think about why the hell it is “single”? and not “multiple”? or “married”? or “married with children”?
“fat free yogurt,
“gluten free everything” “Hands free dialing”
“Driverless car”
“mirrorless camera”
You seem to have choosen the right domain name, then 😛
I would have chosen “mirrorfree” 🙂
The reason it is Single Lens Reflex is because the popular camera at that time was a Twin Lens Reflex. It actually had two lens, one for viewing and focusing, and one for actually taking the picture. No mirror flapping up and down in that camera either (although it did have a mirror – or more likely a prism).
I assume you are replying to my comment below. I’m aware of TLRs. And the reason why I’m aware of TLRs is because I have actually spend some time researching what the “single” in SLR means. Yet, I’m sure that that fine historical detail is completely lost on 99.999% of consumers who have never ever seen a TLR – nor will ever see one.
Same goes for the “mirrorless” moniker, which is not far off from a “NLR” – “no lens reflex”. Or you think that “NLR” would have made a better name?
Damn. I really wanted EVIL to win.
Hard to believe “compact system camera” didn’t catch on!
What a farce! Some know full well the history of the SINGLE lens reflex as related to the TLR (as has been mentioned below) and the term SLR has been widely misinterpreted. Nonetheless, the entire genre is represented by the words Interchangeable Lens, whether it is “Compact” or otherwise. Hence, an exact description should allude at least to ‘ILC’ as part of its acronym, where – as has also been pointed out – ‘mirrorless’ is simply the lack of something. (Like my naked head is hatless). It’s ludicrous, and the CEA ought to be intelligent enough to see that. They weren’t. So their solution solves nothing. Put simply, the genre is ‘System Camera’, the Germans are the ones to see that in their terminology.
Name makes sense to me. Because it’s the most popular name in use. Look at the name of this website. There is no confusion, because people know the comparison to SLRs (which have same class of image quality) is implied. “Mirrorless” is a positive aspect because it tells you “no bulky mirror required”. Same way a “hands free” or “cordless” conveys functionality .
“compact system camera” evokes “compact” cameras which have inferior image quality to SLRs. Saying “compact” implies the goal is to make them tiny. Whereas “mirrorless,” conveys they’re smaller than DSLRs, only via removing the useless mirror, and thus a smart person can instantly absorb the fact that the image quality is on par.
“EVIL,” well do we even have to talk about why that one’s a bad idea?
“ILC” isn’t specific enough, and if you designate it “mirrorless ilc”, then consumers just shorten it to “mirrorless” which is what we as a collective have already done.
MILC always made the most sense to me. Never saw DILSC.
I’ve been in stores where the sales people don’t understand that micro Four-Thirds is not the general term for all mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.