The Mirrorless Crap...

[fwellers]

But even with the EVF they are smaller, lighter, and more compact. Mission accomplished, no?

Agree. Many of us don't want to take a picture at arms length and have become accustomed to the viewfinder as a means of composing, and also as a means of anchoring the camera for slow shutter speeds. EVIL has accomplished all of that and more, in a smaller size. Now you can choose to get histogram and other info in the viewfinder, negating the need to ever look away from it. <grin>.
I haven't had an opportunity to look at an EVF yet. I heard they aren't quite up to the view I can see out of my D700 yet.
Another reason I am holding off is the IQ. I am not convinced it is as good as D700 yet. I know the sensors in the best of them are a bit more advanced in high ISO, but they are also smaller pixels. Not sure why but I think that matters in IQ.

It remains to be seen if EVIL can make a full frame sensor. I don't think they can, without making the body, or at least the lenses bigger again. And that would diminish their reason for being.

 

[manaheim]

Ooo baby get your troll on!

 

[Steve5D]

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

Then why are you shooting digital? If you truly don't like change, you'd be shooting film.

They're not "crap", they're just "different"...

 

[jaomul]

Many great shots from many different type cameras everywhere. Mirrorless suit some and not others. There will be optical viewfinders around for a while yet. At the rate of technology now it may be evfs will be better than optical viewfinders eventually.

 

[ann]

I have and use a d700 and an OMD-Em5 and find myself using the OMD more and more and the 700 less and less.

Perhaps you need to test one out before trashing the concept and the results.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

I have and use a d700 and an OMD-Em5 and find myself using the OMD more and more and the 700 less and less.

Perhaps you need to test one out before trashing the concept and the results.

^ this.

Chris, don't you have a DSLR? About a decade ago the purists would have considered you heretical.

 

[cgipson1]

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).

^This! I hate trying to use a display in bright light.. they all suck at that. (I guess that is why they make hoods for them, lol!) Viewfinders rock for allowing one to concentrate on your subject, look for flaws, be the best that you can be!

As far as a camera that will fit in my pocket... I'll pass.

 

[usayit]

Asking a question within the same context of claiming its crap?

Nice... B.S.

Might as well go full in on this troll fest.... Why would anyone shoot with Nikon crap?

Ooo baby get your troll on!

Hehehe....

 

[Designer]

Why do DSLRs need live view?

I use mine when I have the camera positioned above my head or close to the ground or any other position in which I cannot easily look into the viewfinder. I don't use it often, but when I need it, it is available.

 

[3bayjunkie]

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?

I agree!!! I bought my wife a canon sx40 hs because she wanted a high power zoom camera with video capability and a swiveling lcd screen. And it was an upgrade from her old P&S.

Unfortunately it has one of those idiotic lcd viewfinders. Oh my gosh!!! Are you freakin serious??!?!!! I cant see crap in that view finder and it is soooo tiny and the color looks like im tripping on acid.

What a horrible invention. So what if it takes 10 fps. The viewfinder is useless so why bother even having one...

 

[Dao]

The reason why there are mirrorless cameras?

Would it be ....
1. Manufacturers believe they are in a market of making money.



Here is what I think.
- Digital camera manufacturers believe pocket size point and shooting camera market is shrinking rapidly due to the mobile phone (or tablets) popularity.
- Point and shoot camera manufacturers who have no or little DSLR market may need to find a way out to make a profit.
- They believe there was a opportunity to introduce a new breed of cameras so that they can stay competitive.
- Like most other business, it is risky but they have nothing to lose. Low end P&S market swallowed by mobile phones, high end P&S market are moving up to the entry level DSLR dominate by Canon and Nikon or Sony.
- The market seems to response well with the concept, cameras are selling well.
- They major DSLR manufacturers response to the trend and join the game now.


Is there a limitation of the mirrorless cameras? Yes I am sure, same as any other cameras. It is that different people have different priorities, so it may not be a good camera for person A, but it is for person B.

 

[Overread]

Soooooo its going to be a long weekend for some is it?

Honestly if you don't like the camera system don't go for it - if you want to honestly understand the range - eh - get off the high horse and just ask no need to be overtly hostile about it.

 

[Solarflare]

Well .. basically, mirrorless is the future.

Once EVFs, which are relatively small, are able to produce the quality the sensor can produce, they can show you what the SENSOR ITSELF can see.

SLRs however can only show you what the LENS sees. And they have to do it with a large and bulky mirror box, which also makes lens construction more expensive and the lenses themselves larger, and with another compartment above that adds even more weight and complexity and expense.

The only advantage of SLRs is that they can operate viewing through the lens without any electricity. But you cannot operate digital cameras without electricity anyway, so people are already used to having to handle batteries for their cameras. So its not a huge enough change to actually change anything.

The only reason mirrorless isnt already killing SLRs is because autofocus on SLRs is better - vital for action and low light photography. DSLRs have the mirror box - with a lot more space for really huge and powerful autofocus systems. This detail is why SLRs are still superior and might actually persist, at least for professionals and enthusiasts, for a long time to come. Another reason is of course because said professionals have invested a lot of money into their DSLR glass, so they wont switch systems too easily.

 

[rexbobcat]

I don't like small cameras. They just seem too novel to me and not as "organic" if that makes sense.

I like the bulk of DSLRs as odd as that sounds.

 

[ann]

I am not a fan of using the LCD for shooting, however, there are times when it is terrific, especially when one can focus and fire the shutter from that screen. Recently I took some of my students on a field trip and while they were having some lunch i started talking to a fellow who had worked on the railroads for over 47 years and was 87. I asked him if i could take his picture and with the d700 i would have lost eye contact with him, which changes the relationship ; with the OMD, i just held the camera about chest high and used the LCD screen to focus and fire away all the while chatting with him, eye to eye.

Or, since I am short, nothing like hold the camera over my head and fire away.