Shooting manual

[gsgary]

Why do you call them middle ground Sony A7r2 will beat most DSLR's

 

[f/otographer]

Some high-end mirrorless cameras do outperform low-end dslrs. However, I don't see any sign that mirrorless will take over dslrs. The good thing about the dslrs even though, these are bulky is the ergonomic designed. These feel comfortable to hold and easier to adjust the shutter speed and aperture.

Tecboy, I don't think it will ever be an issue of MC's 'taking over' DSLR's, but there should be a continuing and growing shift in the market as time goes by. This can lead to a possible shift were MC's outsell DSLR's but that is a ways off and I will give some examples of that in a bit. As I have said the mirrorbox assembly has been researched to death and is pretty much at the end of its developmental cycle. If Canon and Nikon had any major improvements in regards to this we would have already seen it. But the fact is that DSLR's simply have a really, really good focusing system due to 30 years of competitive R and D. The DSLR was designed to be the apex predator for 35mm photography and it reached that status long ago. It is only now, in the last few years, that the removal of the mirror has led to several companies other then Canon and Nikon to develop new technologies and think outside the box in an effort to compete with the DSLR. Sony actually tried to go head to head with Canikon with their own alpha DSLR's after purchasing Minoltas camera division with very mixed results. It wasn't until Sony came out with the forward thinking NEX line that they started to see some steam built up in their camera division. The success of those early NEX cameras and the ones that followed showed Sony that EVF's and on sensor AF would be accepted by photographers. That has led to the excellent selection of a7's we have today.

So with companies like Sony, Fuji and the Panasonic/Olympus rapidly pushing out new technology with almost every camera launch we should see mirrorless slowly gain traction as it is picked up by more and more photographers. This is in stark contrast to Canon and Nikon putting out almost the same old tired DSLR with every 'new' release. Just think, in just over two years Sony went from the original a7 model to having put out two more models (a7R, a7S) and then also upgraded them to significantly improved Mark II models of each one. In just over two years. Compare that to Canon who took 5 years to bring out the 7D mark II. I think the rapid, hungry pace of the mirrorless manufactures have caught Canon and Nikon off guard who still think its business as usual and slow updates are acceptable. This is one of the big reasons I think people get attracted to mirrorless. Not just the smaller footprint and new technology, but the apparent willingness of these companies to push the envelope and out develop each other as fast as possible.

Back to MC's outselling DSLR's, it could happen if you look at several different factors. The main thing is that for serious amateur and pro photogs the DSLR has been the apex predator for a while now and the weapon of choice for serious, affordable imagery. Great AF, wonderful lens selection and reliability have indeed made them excellent choices so the installed user base of the DSLR is currently very high. MC's have only been out for a short time but they are gaining in popularity. Because many shooters are 'invested' in a system due to the cost of lenses they will be reluctant to change even thought MC's are showing promise. But as time goes by more and more shooters may decide that MC's are for them for any of the number reasons that MC's are perceived to have an advantage over DSLR's. Then there is the fact that older, dyed in the wool DSLR users will be exiting the field and younger, more open minded photographers will take their place. Especially the generation of children who have grown up with smartphones and tablets in their hands. These shooters are used to looking at a little electronic screen and when they look into their camera view finder they will feel right at home seeing another little electronic screen. It will be second nature to them and they will most likely regard an optical viewfinder (which shows them little to no info about how their image will look) incredibly archaic and wonder how we ever shot that way.

But the really sad fact is that all of this may be an incredibly moot argument. If you look at all of the new camera technologies assaulting the market now then one can surmise what will actually happen is that the entire gestalt of photography will change completely. In other words, in the time needed for MC's to actually overtake DSLR's the entire way photography is handled may irrevocably change. Look at the emerging drone technologies, the incredible new Light L16 camera, the ability to choose DOF after a shot is taken....the list goes on. Smartphones have already become the default camera option for most people and in a way we have entered what Henri Cartier Bresson wished for in having a 'golden age' of photography. Anybody can shoot anything, anywhere, anytime. And with increasing video resolution pulling perfectly good still images from 4k video is already a thing. So what about when 16k video hits? Future cameras may be simply small, high quality 16k video recorders that constantly record burst videos so still images can be taken from them later. Then in post processing you choose your focal point and however much of a shallow depth of field as you desire. Add to this the ability to mount these things on drones or hand them out to reporters or wedding guests and in all honesty the way we shoot in a few years could be radically changed. Photography is one of the Arts most tied to technology and for better or worse this is our heritage and our future. Sure, there will always be those fringe elements who shoot collodion wet plate or pinhole cameras, but the market is going to follow the trends.

Lastly, just a quick thing about the ergonomics of a camera. This is a very subjective thing and will differ radically with each individual. You cant say one type of camera is better in this regard then another, except on a personal basis. For instance my a7 with battery grip, FD adapter and a Canon FL 55/1.2 lens handles (for me) a hundred time better then my friends 5D (body only) and 50/1.8 attached. I picked up his camea and it was bulky and unbalanced. It really felt awkward in my hand. My set up with aperture control on the lens and ISO on the back dial makes my shooting super fast (again, for me). Someone else may find my set up horrible. But I have found the more traditional (retro) style of mirrorless cameras, especially those that mimic the old 35mm film cameras, much better ergonomically then modern DSLR's. But as I said, its all subjective.

 

[tecboy]

If canon takes out the mirror chamber of the dslrs and keep the ergonomically designs, then I will buy it. For now, I rather stick with a dslr.

 

[f/otographer]

I think removing the mirror from a couple of Canon DSLR's would be a great step for them. It would give the existing userbase of Canon a chance to use all their lenses with an EVF and see if they like it enough to make the jump over to a real Canon mirrorless (if they ever make one). But if Canon does indeed make a serious mirrorless it better not use the existing EOS EF mount. It would be a horrible mistake to tie your shiny new MC (which could be your main camera for the next several decades) to a mount that is already over 30 years old. Canons new MC needs a fresh new mount and a new line of modern, optimized lenses. Of course there should be an adapter to use the old EF lenses and I fully expect they would offer this as well. But there also needs to be a new line of lenses available as well to optimize the shorter flange distance. I am sure this is why Canon and Nikon both have been reluctant to 'get serious' about mirrorless. It will involve them starting over from scratch with a new lens lineup and I am sure neither company wants to give up the advantage of their existing, dominating lens offerings.

 

[tecboy]

I think removing the mirror from a couple of Canon DSLR's would be a great step for them. It would give the existing userbase of Canon a chance to use all their lenses with an EVF and see if they like it enough to make the jump over to a real Canon mirrorless (if they ever make one). But if Canon does indeed make a serious mirrorless is better not use the existing EOS EF mount. It would be a horrible mistake to tie your shiny new MC (which could be your main camera for the next several decades) to a mount that is already over 30 years old. Canons new MC needs a fresh new mount and a new line of modern, optimized lenses. Of course there should be an adapter to use the old EF lenses and I fully expect they would offer this as well. But there also needs to be a new line of lenses available as well to optimize the shorter flange distance. I am sure this is why Canon and Nikon both have been reluctant to 'get serious' about mirrorless. It will involve them starting over from scratch with a new lens lineup and I am sure neither company wants to give up the advantage of their existing, dominating lens offerings.

It's good to know.

 

[beagle100]

I think removing the mirror from a couple of Canon DSLR's would be a great step for them. It would give the existing userbase of Canon a chance to use all their lenses with an EVF and see if they like it enough to make the jump over to a real Canon mirrorless (if they ever make one). But if Canon does indeed make a serious mirrorless it better not use the existing EOS EF mount. It would be a horrible mistake to tie your shiny new MC (which could be your main camera for the next several decades) to a mount that is already over 30 years old. Canons new MC needs a fresh new mount and a new line of modern, optimized lenses. Of course there should be an adapter to use the old EF lenses and I fully expect they would offer this as well. But there also needs to be a new line of lenses available as well to optimize the shorter flange distance. I am sure this is why Canon and Nikon both have been reluctant to 'get serious' about mirrorless. It will involve them starting over from scratch with a new lens lineup and I am sure neither company wants to give up the advantage of their existing, dominating lens offerings.

I'm using a Canon mirrorless !
a $100 pocket camera !!

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless/

 

[f/otographer]

I'm using a Canon mirrorless !
a $100 pocket camera !!

Lol, nice. Its true the EOS M is indeed a Canon mirrorless but it wasn't a serious effort on their part. Its a fine little camera to be sure, but all of the EOS M models to have been released are very pricey for what you get and consistently don't stack up to the competition. Its almost as if Canon said "Fine...I guess if we have to put out some type of mirrorless then here's the M."

There was no intention of it ever challenging Canon's own DSLR's as a serious enthusiast or professional camera, much less the mirrorless competition. But that may change in 2016 as Canon seems to be working on (according to rumors) a serious apsc and possibly FF mirrorless camera. I truly hope this is the case, as I am a longtime Canon fan and only shoot Sony right now since they make the camera I need. A serious, rugged, weather proof Canon mirrorless with a great new line of Canon lenses designed with the enthusiast and working professional in mind would, I believe, be a huge hit for them. Here's hoping.

 

[beagle100]

I'm using a Canon mirrorless !
a $100 pocket camera !!

Lol, nice. Its true the EOS M is indeed a Canon mirrorless but it wasn't a serious effort on their part. Its a fine little camera to be sure, but all of the EOS M models to have been released are very pricey for what you getg.

yes, I've heard some mirrorless models (including Canon) cost more than $100
But spending more money on a camera, say $200 or $300 is very "pricey" for a camera - right?
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless