DSLR vs Mirror-Less ???

[usayit]

Strangey the qoute in post 33 does not belong to me even though the system thinks so. I never wrote that.
Anyway. Mirrorles has one huge advantage that was not mentioned here yet: lower production costs and higher profit margins. For this only reason it is unstoppable.

Gavjenks accidentally messed with the "QUOTE" vB tags incorrectly.

 

[Gavjenks]

Example timeline:

1 - D4 is made
2 - D5 is made
3 - Mirrorless technology surpasses SLR technology, and all subsequent major cameras become mirrorless.
4 - D6 mirrorless is made
5 - D7 mirrorless is made
6 - D4 is now old and outdated enough to finally sells for peanuts.
7 - D8 mirrorless is made
8 - D5 is now old and outdated enough to finally sell for peanuts.


At point 6 you'd probably be better off buying a mirrorless mid range camera (the D9100m or whatever) that performs as well as the D4 for about the same money and is compatible with new lenses and has a warranty, than you would buying the D4.

At point 8 you'd probably be better off buying a mirrorless mid range camera (the D9900m or whatever) that performs as well as the D5 for about the same money and is compatible with new lenses and has a warranty, than you would buying the D5.


If what you want is obsolete technology for small amounts of money but really good stats other than being obsolete, you don't have to wait for the future!
You can go out right now today and buy a Nikon F5 film SLR for like $300. Stats:
-1/8000th second to 30 minutes shutter
-color sensitive metering
-a mirror based form of image stabilization in-body
-8 FPS
-1/300th second flash sync
-works with VR lenses
-multiple focus points
-heavy duty build
-100% coverage viewfinder that is probably brighter than any DSLR today

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>>>The basic technology is all here already. It simply needs to be optimized somewhat / the last few well known and well defined engineering kinks ironed out, and then it will be the superior choice in every way.

You mean like the Sony BetaMax system, right? Or like the laser disc system, right? (laughing)

BetaMax and laser disc were in every way "superior choices" compared against their contemporary competitor, the lowly VHS tape. And yet, how is it that both BetaMax and laser disc both ended up deader than a doornail? Utter failures in the marketplace,despite superior technology in virtually every respect. All the engineering kinks were worked out, and yet--disastrous failures. How could that possibly have happened?

You seemingly are not much of a history student. You keep insisting on "advantages" and ignoring the way the real world actually functions when it comes to large numbers of people making real-world buying decisions.

Superior technology often LOSES OUT to better-established systems. It takes a hell of a lot more than "a great idea" to make a product that people actually want. See "Crystal Pepsi" and "New Coke". Maybe you could tell us why those were really great innovations that woulda'', coulda', shoulda' been mega-hits, but were instead dismal, utter, world-class failures? Or you could provide us with a big long essay on the superiority of BetaMax or laserdisc, and how those if re-introduced could take over the world...

 

[goodguy]

Everybody here make excellent points, I think the bottom line is that we just dont know what is going to happened, in my mother Tounge we say that profesy was give to the fools.
I mean to disrespect, I think everybody will make their own decision and be on his/her marry way.
For me its a waiting game, right now my D7100 and my current lenses are perfect for my current knowladge and skills, I think the better I will get the clearer it will be what is the right way to go, Mirrorless, Dslr or maybe something else we dont even think/know off.

 

[shadowlands]

Example timeline:

1 - D4 is made
2 - D5 is made
3 - Mirrorless technology surpasses SLR technology, and all subsequent major cameras become mirrorless.
4 - D6 mirrorless is made
5 - D7 mirrorless is made
6 - D4 is now old and outdated enough to finally sells for peanuts.
7 - D8 mirrorless is made
8 - D5 is now old and outdated enough to finally sell for peanuts.


At point 6 you'd probably be better off buying a mirrorless mid range camera (the D9100m or whatever) that performs as well as the D4 for about the same money and is compatible with new lenses and has a warranty, than you would buying the D4.

At point 8 you'd probably be better off buying a mirrorless mid range camera (the D9900m or whatever) that performs as well as the D5 for about the same money and is compatible with new lenses and has a warranty, than you would buying the D5.


If what you want is obsolete technology for small amounts of money but really good stats other than being obsolete, you don't have to wait for the future!
You can go out right now today and buy a Nikon F5 film SLR for like $300. Stats:
-1/8000th second to 30 minutes shutter
-color sensitive metering
-a mirror based form of image stabilization in-body
-8 FPS
-1/300th second flash sync
-works with VR lenses
-multiple focus points
-heavy duty build
-100% coverage viewfinder that is probably brighter than any DSLR today

You won't change my mind.

 

[Gavjenks]

Betamax was absolutely NOT superior in every way. It had shorter recording times than VHS, and you couldn't play back your videos in-camcorder like you could with VHS.

Similarly, laser discs were huge and had much less data (about half) on each than a VHS, and you couldn't record onto them at home (so no taping your favorite shows or "burning" your own copies for friends, etc.)

In both cases, it's a simple matter of them having bet on the wrong horses in terms of which features consumers would care about most. And not surprisingly, it was the same wrong horse in both cases: consumers turned out to care about recording flexibility and data storage size, not video quality.

That's not an issue, however, if your product literally outperforms along every single dimension. There's no betting involved, because it's just better at everything. If and when autofocus issues are solved, what would be any disadvantage of a mirrorless camera system?

 

[jaomul]

I was on holiday recently and my main 24-105mm lens for my 5d failed. Focus issues and for some who are more experienced and patient manual focus was of course possible. I was in Dubrovnik and almost everyone had better than your consumer point and shoot models. My girlfriend who is not really into photography commented on how everyone seemed to have an expensive looking camera and I did keep an eye out after mine had failed and a lot were using mirrorless jobs, nex, samsung etc etc.

Looking into the specs the micro 4/3rds systems seem to now be almost on a par with aps-c cameras at least for image quality and have enough lenses to go from a field of view of about 18-600mm backed by olympus and panasonic and now sigma. While many will prefer the aps-c size sensor for a mirrorless set up to me it seems like if your going for a csc set up smaller is better, if nex or samsung or fugi make a telephoto lens 200mm + the reasoning behind a compact system seems to make less sense. Its horses for courses but i would imagine a system backed by olympus who are a long time making cameras has a better chance of surviving than sony or samsung. That said canon kicked all its customers where it hurts when they replaced their mount. Life is always weighing up one risk against another

 

[Gavjenks]

Betamax was absolutely NOT superior in every way. It had shorter recording times than VHS, and you couldn't play back your videos in-camcorder like you could with VHS.

Similarly, laser discs were huge and had much less data (about half) on each than a VHS, and you couldn't record onto them at home (so no taping your favorite shows or "burning" your own copies for friends, etc.)

In both cases, it's a simple matter of them having bet on the wrong horses in terms of which features consumers would care about most. Consumers turned out to care about recording flexibility and data storage size, not video quality.

That's not an issue, however, if your product literally outperforms along every single dimension. There's no betting involved. Assuming autofocus issues are solved, what would be any disadvantage of a mirrorless camera system?




Lightbulbs are similar: They outperform kerosene lamps in pretty much every single dimension: cheaper to make and cheaper to use, no more fragile really (both had delicate glass), less likely to burn your house down, more consistent, easier to turn on and off, and brighter. Making it not so much a gamble as an inevitability that they overtake the market.

 

[Gavjenks]

That said canon kicked all its customers where it hurts when they replaced their mount. Life is always weighing up one risk against another

As an earlier poster pointed out, mounts have little to do with mirrorless.

If anything, making a mirrorless system makes your mount MORE universal than before, due to the simplicity of manufacturing adapters between any camera brands when you have a whopping 20mm or so clearance to work with. So you can still use the old mount (meaning it's not a replacement or obsolescence), plus the new ones, plus a bunch of other companies' lenses you couldn't use before.

Nikon mirrorless cameras, for instance, can use canon DSLR lenses, whereas nikon DSLRs can't adapt canon DSLR lenses. Making the Nikon mount MORE flexible in mirrorless.



In fact, 20mm is such a huge distance that it also becomes trivially easy to make those same adapters do things like add tilt shift capability, or add in a manual aperture, to make lenses from other companies more useful (since you lose electronic communication when going cross brand)

here's an example for sale right now of an EOS lens to 4/3 body adapter with built in aperture:
http://www.rakuten.com/prod/ast-can...n-aperture/251712010.html?listingId=293016749

And here's an example for sale right now of a Nikon F lens to 4/3 body adapter with tilt shift:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kipon-Tilt-...icro-4-3-mount-E-P3-PL5-GF5-GX1-/230903843165

 

[jaomul]

That said canon kicked all its customers where it hurts when they replaced their mount. Life is always weighing up one risk against another

As an earlier poster pointed out, mounts have little to do with mirrorless.

If anything, making a mirrorless system makes your mount MORE universal than before, due to the simplicity of manufacturing adapters between any camera brands when you have a whopping 20mm or so clearance to work with. So you can still use the old mount (meaning it's not a replacement or obsolescence), plus the new ones, plus a bunch of other companies' lenses you couldn't use before.

Nikon mirrorless cameras, for instance, can use canon DSLR lenses, whereas nikon DSLRs can't adapt canon DSLR lenses. Making the Nikon mount MORE flexible in mirrorless.



In fact, 20mm is such a huge distance that it also becomes trivially easy to make those same adapters do things like add tilt shift capability, or add in a manual aperture, to make lenses from other companies more useful (since you lose electronic communication when going cross brand)

here's an example for sale right now of an EOS lens to 4/3 body adapter with built in aperture:
Rakuten.com - AST Canon EOS lens to Micro 4/3 Adapter Build-in Aperture

And here's an example for sale right now of a Nikon F lens to 4/3 body adapter with tilt shift:
Kipon Tilt Shift Adapter for Nikon F Lens to Micro 4 3 Mount E P3 PL5 GF5 GX1 | eBay

Just making a point about longevity of systems is only as guaranteed as the company sales or strategy. The customer is always taking a chance, but to be honest as you seem to call me out I don't place much weight in your arguments

 

[Newtricks]

What really worries me personally about the question of Mirrorless vs DSLR is the money I invest in glass.
What happeneds if in time the market will move to mirrorless, what will I do with my lenses.
What if I decide to invest in pro lenses and find myself in 4-5 years my lenses are obsolete ?
If I was rich then not a big deal but moving to pro lenses is a big step to any hobyist, find myself loosing potentially thousants of dollars on outdated gear is not an option for me.
I assume there will be converters matching "old pro lenses" to a Mirorless camera but I am not a big fan of hybrids, rather have lens that ared esigned to work on original body.

What do you mean "What happens"? You keep shooting the system you have know and after everybody has flocked to the latest greatest, you buy all the glass you ever wanted but couldn't afford on Ebay for 10 cents on the dollar of what these people paid for it new, where's the loss there?

 

[Newtricks]

There's absolutely no reason why a mirrorless camera cannot have bulk and heft. They could easily manufacture one that had just as big of a body (with a lot of empty air inside) and weight, just to make people like you happy.

Ha, I don't know about weight for the sake of weight, being ham-fisted (4 3/4" across my open palm) a bigger camera really is more to my liking.

 

[usayit]

Is this bigger is better mentality a pure American mentality? or is this stupidity is spread across the world.

You can make a ergonomically (and in other ways) superior product without it being heavy and bulky. Seems that many of our American car designers suffer from the same mental block.

 

[Gavjenks]

There's absolutely no reason why a mirrorless camera cannot have bulk and heft. They could easily manufacture one that had just as big of a body (with a lot of empty air inside) and weight, just to make people like you happy.

Ha, I don't know about weight for the sake of weight, being ham-fisted (4 3/4" across my open palm) a bigger camera really is more to my liking.

An example of something you could do to address this without adding a massive ridiculous rigid shell would be making the camera have a fold-out "stock" on it, that becomes big enough to get a hefty grip on in use, but can be hidden away and returned to pocket size when not. Or something of that ilk.

 

[Newtricks]

There's absolutely no reason why a mirrorless camera cannot have bulk and heft. They could easily manufacture one that had just as big of a body (with a lot of empty air inside) and weight, just to make people like you happy.

Ha, I don't know about weight for the sake of weight, being ham-fisted (4 3/4" across my open palm) a bigger camera really is more to my liking.

An example of something you could do to address this without adding a massive ridiculous rigid shell would be making the camera have a fold-out "stock" on it, that becomes big enough to get a hefty grip on in use, but can be hidden away and returned to pocket size when not. Or something of that ilk.

I can see that as I am not set on one format or another, a camera body that folds for storage and opens to a full body in use would be great. I've had a camera in my hands since 1970, I was eight years old. AS far as I'm concerned the camera market can go to hell... My next/last camera will be a 5X7 Ebony field camera.