The Mirrorless Crap...

PhotoWrangler · Sep 10, 2012

Why do camera manufacturers invent crap like 'mirrorless' cameras.... and then put an 'electronic viewfinders' on them? Doesn't that nullify the entire point?

And yes I called them 'crap' because that's what I think they are.

Furthermore... what is the attraction to these ridiculous things anyway?

Jaemie · Sep 10, 2012

Just when I was beginning to entertain the purchase of an Olympus OM-D EM-5 with the money from my new job. :er:

PhotoWrangler · Sep 10, 2012

Jaemie said:
Just when I was beginning to entertain the purchase of an Olympus OM-D EM-5 with the money from my new job. :er:

Save your money... buy better Canon glass.

Jaemie · Sep 10, 2012

Discussion hasn't occurred quickly enough.

What specifically do you find so offensive about the EVIL system?

PhotoWrangler · Sep 10, 2012

Jaemie said:
What specifically do you find so offensive about the EVIL system?

I just don't consider them "real" cameras. And that goes for Nikons J/V/ABC 1 whatever they are too.... although I'd buy one of those if it made me look as good as Ashton.

Jaemie · Sep 10, 2012

ChristopherCoy said:
...although I'd buy one of those if it made me look as good as Ashton.

:mrgreen:

Well, I suppose we could argue the definition of "real camera" until Charlie Sheen returns to Two And A Half Men, but what's the point? A better question would be, To what extent does one go to produce the best image?, since that seems to be the essence of the matter. And then we'd have to argue "best image," I imagine. I think at some point form and function are valid considerations, as well. Not to mention cost.

PhotoWrangler · Sep 10, 2012

Yeah, but the whole point of 'mirrorless cameras' was to create a smaller, lighter, compact body. If manufacturers have accomplished that, why are they back to adding "digital viewfinders"? Adding size/weight to a camera that you just stripped down to nothing but a sensor in a plastic box is kinda stupid, isn't it? Additionally, if mirrorless cameras without viewfinders aren't selling well enough, and you have to add a viewfinder to make them appear more "camera like", was it really worth creating to begin with? Couldn't you have spent all that time and money and improved your existing SLR line?

Do you get my point? It just seems like camera manufactures are doing nothing but chasing their tails and spinning in circles...

(and in case you're wondering, I'm on my 4th night shift, its 3am, there's no coffee made, and I'm bored. I think I can hear the paint cracking on the walls.)

Sanqhar · Sep 10, 2012

We can argue about progress all day. I own various cameras which one of the following is the "real" one.

Patent Etui (Google it), lacks a viewfinder and you view the image on the back just like a modern digital. Problem is it is upside down and the wrong way round and you have to have a black cloth over your head!

Voigtlander Bessa (1937), uses paper backed roll film but did have two viewfinders.

Ilford Sportsman f2.8, 35mm but needed a separate rangefinder.

Praktica SLR with a mirror that only returned when the film was wound on. The lever winder was underneath.

A couple of 35mm Nikon compacts and a Leica D-Lux3.

Interestingly, only one of the above has a mirror!

At least an electronic viewfinder is far better than the digital screen on the back, especially in bright sunlight, and you can still put the camera in your pocket (try that with a SLR).

My perfect camera? A rangefinder digital that doesn't cost Leica money!

tom

Jaemie · Sep 10, 2012

Ya, there are clearly manufacturer-driven considerations ($$$) at work, here. No doubt that's a huge part of the equation. But I think it's fair to say there are some true advantages beyond size and weight to the mirrorless system, and that such innovations as live view and EVF features can't be ignored or easily dismissed. And with regards to IQ, the best mirrorless cameras produce images equal to, and in some cases better than, similarly priced DSLR cameras. It isn't just sensor size that determines IQ, after all, lest lenses and processing engines be ignored.

PhotoWrangler · Sep 10, 2012

Sanqhar said:
We can argue about progress all day.

Maybe that's my problem.... I don't like change.

Jaemie · Sep 10, 2012

And I adore elegantly-designed and technologically-advanced gadgetry. Even when it's past it's prime or functionally questionable. Tizio lamps, Bang & Olufsen phones... stuff like that.

PhotoWrangler · Sep 10, 2012

Jaemie said:
And I adore elegantly-designed and technologically-advanced gadgetry. Even when it's past it's prime or functionally questionable. Tizio lamps, Bang & Olufsen phones... stuff like that.

Even though I wrote off Olympus years ago, I do have to say that the OM-D EM5 is rather nice looking, and if I were forced to buy mirrorless crap, it would probably be the one I would go with based on sheer aesthetics alone.