Just five years ago this question could have been classified as purely rhetorical. Despite the fact that the number of mirrorless photographic equipment on store shelves was already beginning to grow rapidly, these newfangled products did not pose any serious competition to classic SLR cameras. And the vast majority of professional photographers and photo reporters continued to use their DSLR Nikons and Canons. Advanced amateur photographers made the same choice.
However, experts in the field of development of technical systems unanimously assured that a revolution in the photo market would definitely occur in the very coming years. And mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders will bury “DSLRs,” just as digital cameras buried their film counterparts in the early 2000s. So what do we have today?
Background
At the very moment when photographic film in cameras was replaced by a light-sensitive matrix, it became clear that the days of SLR photographic equipment were numbered. If we receive a digitized image using a matrix, then God himself ordered to transfer it to an electronic viewfinder, as is done, for example, in video cameras, and examine with our eyes the picture that we get at the output. This decision promised many advantages.Firstly, the photographer was able to make adjustments to exposure or white balance without taking test shots, which would increase the life of the camera.
Secondly, we got rid of the not very reliable mechanism for raising the mirror, which also greatly increased the size of the camera.
And, as a bonus, it became possible to display various information useful for the photographer in the viewfinder field. For example, show an enlarged image at the focusing point to simplify focusing manual lenses.
All that was left to do was to ensure that the electronic viewfinder would produce an image comparable in quality to the image produced by the viewfinders of DSLRs.
Let me remind you, by the way, that mirrorless digital cameras were born before DSLRs. And my first digital camera was some kind of point-and-shoot camera from Olympus with an electronic viewfinder. But the quality of the image it created was so poor that it was impossible to determine in the viewfinder the direction of the subject’s gaze or distinguish other details important to the photographer.
It is not surprising that I soon abandoned this camera.
However, it must be admitted that today the quality of electronic viewfinders has stepped forward significantly. So why don’t we hear mourning music about the “DSLRs” that untimely departed from the photographic market?
Advantages and disadvantages of mirrorless cameras
To answer this question, first of all, you need to decide what advantages a “mirrorless” camera with interchangeable lenses has over “DSLRs,” and how important these advantages are for a photographer.1. Smaller dimensions and weight. Since we're getting rid of the mirror lift mechanism, it's possible to make the camera body flatter and a little lighter. Is this always a good thing? I think no. This is where a factor such as the comfort of photography comes into play. The camera should fit comfortably in your hand. And for this it must have certain dimensions, proportional to the size of the hand.
It is no coincidence that many photographers complain about entry-level DSLRs, the dimensions of which are greatly reduced compared to top models. But, on the other hand, there are areas of camera application in which weight and dimensions play an important role. For example, photography while traveling.
2. Higher shutter reliability. Since in “DSLRs”, in addition to the camera shutter itself, there is also a mirror lifting mechanism, which is often the first to fail, “mirrorless cameras” should have greater reliability and a longer shutter life. It is difficult to say how true this is in real life. However, some companies give the number 400 thousand in the technical characteristics of their “mirrorless” products. That's how many photos you can take before the shutter breaks for the first time. This is a very good indicator, comparable to the lifespan of professional DSLRs.
3. Great information content of the viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder has several significant advantages. The photographer sees in it almost the same picture that he will receive after pressing the shutter button. That is, he can increase the exposure if the frame seems too dark to him. Or adjust the white balance without taking test shots. In addition, when shooting in the dark, he can see the subject better because the image in the electronic viewfinder will be bright. Also, in the electronic viewfinder you can display a lot of useful information on the screen, as mentioned earlier.
4. Lower cost. In theory, the absence of an expensive mechanism for lifting the mirror, lower weight and dimensions should lead to the fact that the “mirrorless” camera will be cheaper than its “mirror” counterparts. But for now the situation is rather the opposite.
Now, in order to be objective in my assessments, I will also talk about the disadvantages of “mirrorless” cameras.
1. Due to their reduced dimensions, they fit worse in the hand.
2. The electronic viewfinder consumes power to operate. And since it works constantly while shooting, the batteries run out quickly. While many DSLR cameras can take more than a thousand frames on a single charge, mirrorless cameras can barely take 400 pictures. It’s especially disappointing that even when you’re not shooting, but just looking at something through the viewfinder, battery power is actively being consumed. That is, you won’t take aim for a long time.
3. Although the image quality in the electronic viewfinder has improved, it is still inferior to the image of the optical channel in DSLRs. 4. Mirrorless cameras turn on a little slower, and in some of them the image is presented with some delay, which, however, is not critical. 5. Many “mirrorless” cameras are still inferior in terms of autofocus speed, although the appearance in the latest models of hybrid autofocus, where focusing is based on both contrast and phase sensors, has almost corrected the situation.
Comparison with specific examples
Judging by the ratings of Yandex Market and the MOYO trading network https://www.moyo.ua/foto_video/photo_video/cameras/, one of the most popular top-level “mirrorless” cameras is the Sony Alpha A7R2, the price of which now fluctuates around 200 thousand rubles per body without lens. This is approximately the cost of a DSLR camera such as the Canon 5D mark3.Let's compare them and announce, if not the final verdict, then at least the results of the intermediate finish in the ongoing race between these two types of cameras.
| Camera type: | ||
| Appearance: |  |
 |
| Sensor size: | 36 x 24 mm | 35.9 x 24 mm |
| Frame Size: | 5760 x 3840 or 22.3 million pixels | 7952 x 5304 or 42.4 million pixels |
| Matrix type: | CMOS | BSI CMOS |
| Matrix stabilizer: | Absent | 5-axis stabilization |
| Shooting speed: | 6 fps | 5 fps |
| Viewfinder: | Optic | Electronic 2359296 pixels |
| LCD screen: | 1044000 dots, 3.20 inches | 1228800 dots, 3 inches |
| Excerpt: | 30 – 1/8000 | 30 – 1/8000 |
| Battery capacity: | 950 frames | 340 frames |
| Video resolution: | 1920x1080 | 3840x2160 |
| Max frame rate HD video: | 30fps | 60 fps |
| Camera size: | 152x116x76 mm, without lens | 127x96x60 mm, without lens |
| Camera weight: | 950 g, with batteries | 625 g, with batteries |
As you can see, the dry logic of the numbers suggests that the “mirrorless” camera Sony Alpha A7R2 wins in most respects.
It has a more advanced back-illuminated sensor, which reduces noise at high sensitivity values.
It allows you to take pictures almost twice the size in terms of megapixels.
Shoots video in 4K format. And in HD format it makes it possible to shoot videos at a frequency of 60 frames per second versus 30 frames for Canon.
At the same time, it is lighter and more compact than its mirror competitor.
And one more important point: Sony Alpha A7R2 has an effective stabilizer on the matrix. While Canon does not have it, since the company still prefers to install optical stabilizers directly into lenses, which terribly increases their cost.
The Sony Alpha A7R2 loses so far only in shorter battery life and slightly in rate of fire. A little in focusing speed and turn-on time. It also feels less comfortable in the hand and is not as easy to control.
At first glance, it is clear that this “mirrorless” camera has more advantages than disadvantages compared to the flagship from Canon.
So why do most professional photographers and advanced amateurs still prefer to shoot with DSLRs? The reason, in my opinion, should be sought on two levels.
Firstly, the Sony Alpha A7R2 and most other “mirrorless” cameras are still inferior in efficiency and ergonomics, which are often crucial for professionals.
Secondly, there is a certain inertia of choice at work. It takes time for the buyer to believe in a new type of camera. And the problem of switching to a new line of lenses should not be discounted.
For those photographers who are choosing a camera from scratch, today it makes sense to think about buying a “mirrorless” camera, especially if it will be used primarily while traveling, where every kilogram of weight creates considerable problems.
It turns out that the age of “DSLRs” is coming to an end. Unless, of course, their manufacturers come up with something out of the ordinary.
Valery MISHAKOV
Or a mirrorless camera, you need to understand what advantages and disadvantages each of them has. A mirrorless camera, due to the absence of a pentaprism and a mirror, has a much smaller size, which is a definite advantage for a mobile, active person.
Such a device, with a compact lens, can easily fit into a bag or bag, so you can carry it with you every day. The DSLR camera loses in this matter. The dimensions and weight of such devices are much larger, however, thanks to this, more controls can be placed on the body, making it more convenient to hold in your hands.
Most mirrorless cameras are not equipped with a viewfinder; its function is performed by an LCD monitor, the use of which is difficult in sunny weather due to glare. In addition, the monitor consumes quite a lot of battery power. Only expensive mirrorless models have an electronic viewfinder. SLR cameras have an optical viewfinder.
Due to the fact that in mirrorless cameras the image is transferred to the LCD monitor directly from the matrix, it works constantly, which is why it gets quite hot. Heating causes additional noise and deterioration in image quality, which, however, are rarely noticeable. Therefore, when shooting, it is better to turn off the camera more often to allow the matrix to cool.
SLR cameras use phase focusing during shooting. Those. it contains special sensors that receive light directly from the object. Mirrorless cameras do not have such sensors because there is nowhere to place them, so software contrast focusing methods are used for focusing. Phase focusing is much faster and slightly more accurate than contrast focusing.
Another disadvantage of mirrorless cameras is the relatively small set of interchangeable lenses developed for this type of equipment, as well as their high price. However, manufacturers are actively working on creating new models. In addition, with the help of various adapters, it is possible to use both lenses from and lenses from old Soviet devices.
One of the most important parts of a camera is its sensor. In this sense, mirrorless cameras are in no way inferior to their opponents. In most cases, manufacturers install the same matrices in mirrorless cameras as in their SLR camera models.
So, comparing the characteristics of SLR and mirrorless cameras does not give a clear answer to the question of which type of equipment is better. The main advantage of mirrorless cameras is their compactness, but in other respects they are catching up with their competitors every year.
Thus, if you need an everyday camera that you can carry with you, you should go for a mirrorless camera. Its functionality is enough to solve 99% of the problems facing an amateur photographer. If you want to take photographs of the highest professional quality, you should choose semi-professional or professional. In any case, the quality of the image largely depends not on the camera, but on the talent of the photographer.
Previously, only two types of cameras were presented on the photographic equipment market: SLR and conventional digital point-and-shoot cameras. The first ones were aimed at professionals and so-called advanced users. But another type of camera was intended for a wider audience. Today, another type of camera has appeared: digital cameras with detachable lenses. They are also called system or mirrorless. You can purchase all of the above models in the cifrosvit.com store. The assortment is wide. To decide which camera is better, you first need to understand what they are.
Thus, a SLR camera is equipped with a viewfinder based on a mirror. There are two-lens and single-lens reflex devices available for sale. The mirror in them is at an angle of forty-five degrees, so through the viewfinder you can see a real, not digitized, picture. The light that enters through the lens is reflected by the mirror and rushes upward. There he ends up in a pentamirror. It gives the image a normal orientation. That is, if there were no pentamirror, the image would be upside down. It turns out that a distinctive feature of DSLRs is the presence of an optical viewfinder (photo 1).
A digital camera with interchangeable lenses does not have such a mirror viewfinder. A screen is used instead. Those devices that are more expensive use an electronic viewfinder. The already digitized image is visible on such a viewfinder. It looks like a small screen with a certain extension. It is always indicated in the specification that comes with the camera (photo 2). 
Now let's look at the advantages of SLR cameras. Of course, their main advantage is the optical viewfinder, which shows an undigitized and raw image. It also delivers images without delay. In addition, such devices are also characterized by a phase-automatic housing. They have much better ergonomics. The mirror and pentaprism in the body take up a lot of space, so the DSLRs look very large (photo 3). 
DSLR cameras are equipped with an additional monochrome display, especially large devices. Professional cameras have good access to different buttons and wheels, as well as other controls. All of them are on the carcass. The operating time of such cameras is significantly higher than digital ones. Batteries are most often capacious and long-lasting (photo 4). 
Digital cameras that come with interchangeable lenses also have certain advantages. So, they are significantly smaller in size than their competitors. The optics are also compact. Cameras that come with an electronic viewfinder are suitable for nearsighted people. You can see additional information on the screen (photo 5). 
Many manufacturers produce such cameras today. Thus, cameras from Olympus, Canon, Fujifilm, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung and others will be on sale. The price is completely different. Both SLR and mirrorless cameras are equipped with a good matrix. Also, these two types are also united by the fact that they are system cameras, that is, they have interchangeable optics (photo 6). 
So, which of the two types of cameras listed above is better is up to the user to decide. Many agree that DSLRs are still superior to digital cameras with interchangeable lenses. When choosing a camera, pay attention to price, optics, turn-on and focusing speed. For important photography, it is best to use a DSLR camera (photo 7).
Updated: 08/03/2016 Oleg Lazhechnikov
121
Those who follow me on social networks may have already seen that I had a kind of revolution in consciousness and switched to a mirrorless camera. It became the Sony Alpha a6000. Unfortunately, the post was not paid for, since they did not respond to my letter about cooperation, so I had to buy it with my own money. But now the post is not about the camera, but about the sensations after the transition, so Sony still has time to come to its senses :)
Also, the post will not contain test comparison shots, because I don’t have a DSLR with me now, I didn’t take it to Warsaw. After all, initially everything was started to reduce weight, otherwise nothing fits into my hand luggage. In short, a mirrorless camera is a simple salvation!
Previously, I was completely skeptical about mirrorless cameras; they did not suit me in various respects. But time has passed, and now mirrorless cameras are no longer technically inferior to their mirrored counterparts. It seems to me that a little more and there may be nothing left of the class of amateur DSLRs at all, there will be no point in them. Although for now they are a good alternative simply because of the price, since mirrorless cameras are more expensive. Actually, that’s why I would still advise beginners, just because of the savings. But, if price is not an issue, then you can safely take something Nex-o-like from Sony or other brands.
After I realized that technically I was getting almost the same camera (meeting my needs), the first minus came out as ergonomics. Although I’m not a reporter, you get used to the ease of control very quickly. Looking through the viewfinder, you can change settings in a split second by blindly turning the various wheels. Also, the Canon 7d camera focuses very quickly (and almost no blurring), and is instantly ready for use after turning it on. It seems like, just think, a fraction of a second, but it’s difficult to give up what you’re used to, especially since the new camera is in a similar price category. It's like a phone, if it starts to slow down and you wait for several seconds for an application to load, then such a phone quickly begins to irritate. This is what I feared here.
About six months ago I twirled the Nex-5 and Nex-6 (previous models) in my hands and liked everything. Lightweight, compact, the pictures are also good. The A6000 is even better, it has faster focus, more convenient controls and menus. Therefore, before my next trip, I made a sharp decision (one day) and bought it, having received the box the day before departure. In fact, it was only at the airport that I used the camera for the first time.
Reasons for the transition
The main reason for the transition was that I was tired of carrying heavy things with me, and it was no longer possible to take something large with me. Even though I only have a Canon 7d body and two lenses for it, 24-105 and 11-16, it still came out to 2 kg. Plus additional batteries, chargers, remote control, filters, tripod (1kg), that is, a total of about 3-4 kg minimum. My hand luggage on the plane usually weighed under 10 kg, including the laptop and other things. In general, all this no longer fits normally in the car with which I usually travel.
In the end, I just faced the truth and realized that I haven’t taken the whole set with me for a long time, since most often we go somewhere together, and in my backpack I also have Egor’s toys, some food, his clothes and etc. Or even if I take a DSLR with me, then it’s inconvenient for me to dig it out of my backpack, and I take pictures with my phone. This is no good.
The second reason for the switch is that I mostly have photographs for the blog, and the width is only 900px, sometimes more. I also printed it a couple of times in two years, and the 15x20 size doesn’t require much. Thus, it is quite possible to reduce your requirements for a camera for every day (for a travel camera), not a wedding owner.
What did I get
The weight of the Sony a6000 camera with an 18-105 lens is about 0.9 kg. It seems to be quite a lot, but it’s still unusually easy. In addition, you can put a smaller lens, down to a small pancake, and you can even put the camera in your pocket. But for now I don’t plan anything else, one lens will suffice as a universal one. In fact, it covers almost all the focal lengths I need when traveling, but sometimes the width of 10-18 is not enough. Also, I won’t buy any additional filters or remote controls for now, and I’ll change my tripod to something very miniature and light. In general, it turned out very compactly, I am satisfied, the main task was completed. All that remains is to sell the DSLR with accessories and all purchases will pay off.
The camera is crop 1.5, that is, the matrix is the same size as I had. It shoots in RAW, then everything lends itself well to processing in Lightroom. The dynamic range seems to be good too, I won’t say that I see a noticeable difference, to be honest, I don’t see it at all. ISO is working up to 1600-3200, but 3200 is already a bit noisy for me. The picture is nice, but different, the color rendition is different. The bokeh has changed.
In general, if it were not for speed, then there are no complaints at all, even about ergonomics, because after all, it is rarely necessary. But speed is also a problem, you just have to remember to set the burst mode, like a machine gun then.
Life hack 1 - how to buy good insurance
It’s incredibly difficult to choose insurance now, so I’m compiling a rating to help all travelers. To do this, I constantly monitor forums, study insurance contracts and use insurance myself.
Life hack 2 - how to find a hotel 20% cheaper
Thanks for reading
4,77
out of 5 (ratings: 64)
Comments (121)
Eugene
Mila Demenkova
Natalie
Alexander
Andrey
land_driver
Tatiana
Paul
Kotovsky
Kostya
Julia
Kachubey
Mikhail Schwartz
Alexander
Angelina
Ovsyannikovs
Anton Zh
Ruslan
Andrey Lunyachek
Andrey
Kildor
Victoria Camilleri
Marybe
Andryusiks
forworldtravel
Victoria Zlata
forworldtravel
During the recent stream “Algorithms for choosing photographic equipment”, dedicated, as the name implies, to the peculiarities of choosing cameras and lenses, I raised the topic of “DSLRs versus mirrorless cameras”. Well, I picked it up and raised it, just as a step in the same algorithm for choosing photographic equipment... To be honest, I thought that we would skip over this topic quite quickly, it has already been discussed up and down, from all sides, so to speak. Ah, that’s not the case! It turns out that there are still a lot of prejudices against mirrorless cameras among photographers! A rather heated discussion ensued, as a result of which I decided to write this post in order to try to dot all the “e”s in writing. For clarity, I decided to format the post in the form of questions and answers or in the form of remarks and comments to them. Almost all questions or comments are real, those that were voiced either during the stream itself or after, in the discussion.
"There are a lot of photographers who fell for the manufacturers' marketing tricks and their sweet advertising promises, switched to mirrorless cameras. And then they quickly returned to their DSLR cameras."
Perhaps, of course, this happened to someone. But there is a nuance here. It often seems to us that if something happens in our environment in a certain way, then everything is exactly the same everywhere. However, this is an illusion. Several acquaintances who returned back to DSLRs are not an indicator. Moreover, I can give a similar counterargument - many professional photographers I know are switching to mirrorless cameras.
Moreover, global sales statistics show that for many years now there has been a decline in sales of mirrored systems and an increase in mirrorless systems. The approximation of these two graphs suggests that literally next year there will be parity, and then there will be more mirrorless cameras sold in the world than DSLRs.
Indeed, even now, as a photographer, I see no reason why I should advise buying an entry-level DSLR as my first camera. In all respects, except perhaps price, these cameras are inferior to entry-level mirrorless cameras. That is, DSLR cameras still hold the lead in the top segment when shooting reportage. And even then... For landscape photography, for object photography, for interior photography, architectural, studio work, for portraits, and for many other relatively calm types of photography - a mirror is no longer needed even in the top segment, this is a fact. Moreover, it’s simply superfluous! SLR systems do not allow you to constantly control the depth of field, which is very important in product and portrait photography, they will not show ready-made colors, contrasts and brightness before pressing the shutter button, which is useful in landscape and architectural photography, and so on and so forth.
“But mirrorless cameras are slower!”
Actually never like that. For example, I just took handheld shots of a car with wiring on the street with a mirrorless medium format camera. If someone had told me a couple of years ago that I would shoot 3 50MP frames per second with AF tracking on a mirrorless medium format on the dynamics of a car passing by, I would have simply laughed in his face! No, really! Even if the mirrorless medium format is fast, what can we say about more compact systems?!..
For example, the FUJIFILM X-T2 feels like a very lively camera in your hands, and the Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk2 is generally super fast! And it’s not even about how many frames per second this or that camera can shoot (although the same E-M1 mk2 is completely out of reach for this parameter - up to 60 20MP RAW per second!), but about how it feels in operation - delays when pressing the shutter, when operating AF systems in mirrorless cameras, are minimized and almost shooting feels exactly the same as with SLR cameras. So it's not like that, it's not slow anymore.
"Mirrorless cameras have very slow autofocus!"
There is a lot to be said about AF. Previously, he really was that Achilles heel. But now the autofocus of mirrorless cameras is no longer slow. Both frame-by-frame and tracking - everything is already at the level of good professional DSLRs, albeit not top-end ones, but still.
Moreover, contrast (or, what is more common now, hybrid AF) is much more accurate than phase-detection autofocus of DSLRs: here you have neither back focus nor front focus! In backlight it works more stable than phase detection. In the dark, contrast AF works better than phase detection. The focusing area can be of any size, even very tiny, even half the screen. The focus point can be located anywhere, even in the very corner of the frame. This point can easily be linked to exposure metering (which is only available on top-end DSLRs). The focus area can always be instantly increased for more precise control of sharpness. You can use focus peaking and with a little training you can achieve focus with manual glasses at the same speed as with autofocus lenses. Detection of faces, eyes, tracking of objects, all this with contrast AF is implemented much easier and with greater capabilities.
"And the digital viewfinder is a minus!"
Vice versa! The electronic viewfinder (EVF) is a huge plus! If it gets dark outside, what do you do with your optical viewfinder (OVF)? That's right, stop shooting and go home, because you can't see anything through that peephole, especially if the optics are not fast. And EVI shows everything! At the very least, noisy, but it shows! At dusk and in the dark, it works as a night vision device, shooting is much more comfortable, and the scene is better visible.
At the same time, EVI immediately produces a picture the same as you will receive later, without the need to mentally calculate b/w, for example, or the colors of the final frame. You can immediately see the depth of field, which, by the way, cannot be seen at all on DSLRs, and which is terribly annoying in subject photography. Yes, here in the comments they remember about DOF-Preview for DSLRs... Well, imagine that you are shooting a subject at f/11 and a long shutter speed, what will you see there on the DSLR? A beautiful dark rectangle instead of a frame. Further, in the EVI you can display a histogram for yourself, you can see focus peaking, you can instantly, with one click of a button, enlarge the image for more careful aiming, you can view the footage in the EVI if the sun is blinding or it’s drizzling.
At the same time, the EVI on top mirrorless cameras like the FUJIFILM X-T2 or on the Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk2 is almost the same in size as on the Canon EOS 1Dx! After these viewfinders, entry-level and mid-level JVI DSLRs are like a small peephole on a door. Even the JVI of a “penny” doesn’t look particularly cool after a good EVI.
“If you can’t see something in the viewfinder on your DSLR, turn on life view.”
This is absolutely funny! =:) No, really! Buy a large SLR camera to use as a mirrorless one! At the same time, with live view, the speed of even the 5Dm3 immediately becomes like that of an inexpensive mirrorless camera from five years ago... No tracking AF, no focus peaking, no all of the above-mentioned goodies... And the screen does not rotate even on the 5Dm4! Why do you need such a crutch?! To be at least somehow similar to a mirrorless camera?!.. =:)
“On my 5Dm3, I used lifeview only when I was shooting from the floor, so as not to lie down. And then, only to frame the frame. And I was shooting with the mirror already lowered.”
Well, listen, this is all reminiscent of talking about phones when cell phones first appeared! Everyone kept saying that mobile phones are expensive, inconvenient and the quality of communication is poor, but you can always call from home or, in extreme cases, by taxi, the sound is much better, and much cheaper! =:)
There are obvious advantages of mirrorless systems; a lot has already been said about them here. They are, perhaps, understandable to everyone who films a lot. I will not argue that all problems can be solved with SLR cameras, just as before all problems were solved with film technology. But the digital came and where is the film now? Although at the beginning, many people also said the same things. It’s just that someone has already built their own workflow and doesn’t want to change it, everything suits them. It may be difficult, it may be absurd in places, as in your case about life view, but everything is already known, why change? I understand this, sometimes I’m the same...
"The Canon 5D Mark IV now has a touch screen, by the way."
Wow, cool!!! Less than five years have passed since such screens appeared on mirrorless cameras, when this technology finally reached the top Canon model (so far only up to the “five”, the “one” still cannot boast of this)! Look, in another 5 years the screen will become folding or rotating! =:) If Canon is not in the ascendant by then, of course...
“It’s actually funny about the possible demise of Nikon or Canon!”
Time will tell whether Canon or Nikon is funny or not. In the meantime, I recommend that you look at the financial reports of these companies and market trends; there may be food for thought. At one time, no one believed in the inglorious end of the era of Nokia's dominance in the phone market... And what do we see now?
“Mirrorless cameras have enough batteries for 300 shots!
I assume that the number 300 came from a crude joke about “tractor drivers” =:) My experience says that I don’t shoot less than 800 frames on one battery, even if I don’t turn off the camera at all. My colleague Stanislav Vasiliev
On one charge, my Olympus shoots 1500 frames or more, if my memory serves me correctly. Many photographers who shoot with mirrorless cameras claim that the battery is enough for them to last a day of shooting. But even if not, then taking an extra battery and/or portable charger is not a problem at all, they are now very compact.
In fact, manufacturers have a measurement method that produces 300-400 frames, and they indicate this data in the camera specifications. In real life, one battery allows you to remove much more. So this is not a problem at all.
“It’s very inconvenient to use mirrorless cameras in studio shooting!”
Why?!.. Where does this belief come from?!.. I shoot a lot with mirrorless cameras in the studio. Personally, I find it much more convenient to shoot there. I put the picture on the screen - and it becomes much easier to control and frame the frame. It’s not for nothing that photographers in the studio usually shoot “on a computer” (the camera is connected with a cord or via Wi-Fi to the computer and the image can be immediately viewed on the monitor screen, in high resolution). In general, purely psychologically, it is much easier to construct an image on the screen than through the viewfinder shaft. I’m not talking about low angles, which are not at all uncommon in the studio and when shooting which a photographer with a DSLR will have to spend many hours either squatting, or kneeling or sitting on the floor.
If we are talking about the fact that when setting the typical parameters of studio shooting with pulse devices (closed aperture, low ISO, shutter speed) nothing is visible on mirrorless cameras, then, in fact, this is an option and can be turned off. Then the screen will be like a DSLR - everything is bright, even with these aperture-shutter-speed-ISO settings.
“Even more so, mirrorless cameras are useless in reporting!”
For as long as I've been filming reports, I haven't experienced any problems. Well, perhaps, sometimes there are moments of particularly rapid development of situations where top-end DSLRs really rule, I agree. But in a relatively calm reportage, everything is fine with mirrorless cameras. Moreover, the ability to shoot handheld on the folding screen from the top or bottom angles always aroused the envy of the photo-corrosters who were shooting nearby on DSLRs.
"Roughly speaking, at this stage development, a mirrorless camera is a camera for photographing cats, for a home photo shoot or for travel photography, where masterpieces are not needed..."
Well, the professionals who are now switching to mirrorless cameras do not agree with you. They film weddings, film in studios, shoot videos - in general, now there is a massive transition of videographers to Sony A7 * or to mirrorless cameras from Panasonic... I have already spoken about interiors, about nature too, I am generally silent about the subject - here the mirror only gets in the way, this is already clear to everyone.
I don’t quite understand how, well, let’s say, a Sony A7R II camera, which has absolutely the same matrix as the Nikon D810A, to which you can attach good Zeiss optics, or through a Metabones adapter the same Nikon lenses as this camera will, for example, photograph a landscape worse than the D810A DSLR?! What has to happen, well, except perhaps for crooked hands, for a shot on a mirrorless camera to turn out bad? I don’t understand... But, for example, mirror shock (camera shake from the triggered mirror lifting mechanism) - I understand this very well and I know that this often leads to micro-smearing, which is immediately very noticeable in a 36.6MP picture. Here everything is very clear.
“You talk a lot about the compactness of mirrorless systems. But if you take several lenses with you, then the size of the camera is no longer very important. The weight of the lenses itself is sufficient.
If we talk about mirrorless cameras, then the constructive ability to “move” the lens closer to the matrix due to the absence of a mirror allows you to make the optics itself much more compact and, as a result, lighter. On mirrorless cameras, a similar set of lenses will, as a rule, be one and a half to two times lighter than similar lenses for DSLRs. All this with exactly the same quality, or even better, because the optics of mirrorless cameras were developed directly for new matrices, and not for film or old sensors, as was the case with most lenses in SLR systems. And a similar set will most likely cost less. And if you stop, for example, at crop size 1.5, then even more so! And your wallet, back and neck will thank you very much, believe me! =:)
"As for the size of the matrix... The larger the matrix, the better (this is the law of optics). This is about crop."
Agree. That's right. But if we approach it from the customer’s side, then many of them are not interested in our problems and difficulties at all, what matters to them is whether they will then have a good picture or not? And if people often cannot distinguish at all what was shot with FF and what with 1.5 crop, then we, photographers, can actually carry less weights.
This, by the way, does not mean that customers are fools and completely do not see the difference between full frame and crop. This means that the camera contains not only a matrix, but also optics (which contributes even more to the quality of the photo than the matrix, by the way), and also electronics. Taken together, it turns out that good optics + a new matrix + advanced signal processing often give better quality at 1.5 crop than the old matrix + film optics + old signal processing algorithms on many full frames.
“SLRs have better convenience and ergonomics!”
I completely disagree with this! From year to year, from model to model, DSLRs bring with them all the ergonomic miscalculations... uh... peculiarities, starting with the first cameras of this class. Nikon still requires you to press a button and spin a wheel at the same time to change many settings. Oh yes! Of course, you can easily get used to this, it’s protection against accidental turning of the wheels, yes, yes... I have no doubt that it is very necessary in reportage shooting, when the camera hangs either on the stomach, then on the side, or somewhere in backpack or trunk. But not everyone needs this; not everyone is a reportage photographer, unfortunately. And for me personally, this “press-hold-twist” thing is wildly inconvenient. For lovers of Canon ergonomics, I always ask, well, for example, to change the ISO blindly without looking up from the viewfinder. Even long-time fans of “Pyataks” perform this “exercise” once out of five attempts, not to mention the owners of younger models. =:) The ergonomics of DSLRs are traditionally BAD. It is designed more for octopuses than for people.
But it's not even that she's bad. This is not so bad... The worse thing is that it has NOT CHANGED for years. Yes, mirrorless cameras are not always convenient, some things are not obvious, some are downright bad, I agree. But engineers are constantly experimenting, trying new ergonomic solutions, trying to fit ALL control elements into a compact body, and now all controls are much more convenient to operate than those offered by DSLR designers from year to year. So I don’t agree with you that “the DSLR “fits” better and more conveniently in the hand.”
“This is not only my opinion or that of my friends, but also, for example, Alexei Dovgul.
Forgive me, but in this matter I don’t see the opinion of Alexey Dovgul as being of any importance, with all due respect to him as a photographer and as a colleague. Of course, he can express any opinion, it is not even questioned. But I presented my arguments and they look much more convincing to me than the opinion of one good photographer, forgive me.
UPD! I’ll add Alexey’s own comment:
"Ho-ho-ho!!! :)))) ahhh mirrorless cameras are coming!!! Since I’m mentioned, I have the right to speak out. I won’t get into an argument, I’ll just say that I’m not against mirrorless cameras for amateurs and some categories professionals. But so far, most mirrorless cameras are useless to me. I have developed a style of working in reportage photography for years, and this is 50% of my work. I work with two cameras and almost never hold the camera with both hands, so a wide grip on the camera is important, here the smaller size is bad for me. I have 2 programmable shooting modes on one camera and 3 modes on another, and I use all of them in reporting and change them with one finger. As for the viewfinder, it seems to me a matter of habit, but trying to shoot beauty with a mirrorless camera is I ended up in failure - slowly, maybe this issue has been resolved at the top ones. About the aggressive reporting, I’m even afraid to think about it, to be honest. I work a lot with two flashes, but not every manufacturer makes good flashes and synchronization tools for them, probably only Sony will help here. The list of little things goes on, this is the first pain I encounter. But on a tourist trip, I will definitely choose a mirrorless camera. And even when my friends ask me which DSLR to buy, if I see that the person is not a pro and does not intend to be one, I send him in the direction of Sony Oli Fuji. So the opinion that I am against mirrorless cameras is false, perhaps it was formed under the influence of my particular pain. My result: the destiny of amateurs and professionals of leisurely shooting with rarely changing conditions is a mirrorless camera, my destiny is a large DSLR. But that's it for now. I completely agree that over time the mirror will go away. By the way, I will be grateful if someone gives me a pair of mirrorless cameras with fast lenses from 17 to 200mm and a pair of flashes for a full test of wedding photography, then I will be able to constructively fend off Anton’s arguments or vice versa :)))))"
"This post is paid for, it's all jeans!!!1"
Dooooo!.. Of course! And in general, Churchill came up with all this in 1918! =:)
But seriously, this post was written simply on the basis of common sense and real-life facts. It's hard for me to understand how this could not be obvious? =:)
Loading...
