C'mon let's wake this forum up

[MissionMan]

Nope. I think it just happens with Arg at the moment. Everyone else seems to be able to distinguish between the two.

Rick. Can we close this thread. I find it hard to believe that Arg is doing anything other than trolling here. I've given him the benefit of the doubt but now I can come to no conclusion other than him being a troll or a complete idiot and I'm guessing it's the former.

[Arg]

Richard Butler has posted an article on DPR titled "Opinion: The future of DSLR or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the ILC". He says that Mirrorless is closing the gap to DSLR, and DSLR is closing the gap to Mirrorless (yes, there is such a gap). As the gaps close, he says buyers will not differentiate, but just buy whichever they like most.

If this happens (or already is), Mirrorless sales will take off IMHO, because there will no longer be such a claim as "I shoot DSLR because they are best for what I do". As soon as the market sees it this way, 50/50 sales volumes will quickly follow.

For God's sake, Arg, please stop with your incessant harping about trying to convince DSLR users that ML is the answer and we must all change. Your one man crusade is getting a little tiresome, like a religious fanatic, "repent and see the light, non believer!" (pun not intended). We will change when we want to or when we have to, not because you keep trying to convince us to simply because it works for you. We get it, you love your ML camera but it doesn't mean I have to or that any other DSLR users have to, just please get over it and move on.

If this isn't ACTUAL BULLYING -- personal, aggressive, and unwarranted -- then I don't know what would be.

Plenty of' 'upper echelon' DSLR owners are going mirrorless. The idea that it's all about size is misplaced and has been clarified earlier. That's only one valid reason. People who *haven't* made the change aren't really the ones to say why people who *have* made the change did it, are they?

Any decision making text will explain that sunk costs need to be ignored in considering the next spend. The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake. Not having money to spare is of course different and must be taken into account.

Plenty of upper echelon DSLR owners are also NOT going mirrorless. I am not sure what your purpose on this site is, other than to try and create ARGuments? We do not get to see any of your photography and all you seem to do is harp on about how great mirrorless is and why we should all change, and if we do not change, then we are making a mistake, in your opinion. Well lots of others have just as valid opinions and disagree entirely with you. I do not understand your desire to constantly deride those who have not swapped to, or are not intending to swap to mirrorless. You have been told over and over why a lot of us are not changing, but that has not stopped your relentless pursuit of ARGument and stupid statements like "The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake". Again trying to insinuate that those who do not get it (and move to mirrorless) are making some kind of mistake.

Show me an advanced level DSLR photographer who cannot take brilliant photos with their DSLR? And then explain to me how having a DSLR is a mistake.

Rick, you completely misunderstood my post. I never said that "DSLR owners who 'get' that mirrorless is better, won't make the mistake of buying DSLR next time". ????!!!!??!?! I said that DSLR owners who 'get' that sunk costs need to be ignored in making the next spending decision, won't make the mistake of putting too much importance on the value of their prior investment (lenses and kit) as a deterrent against buying something different next time.

Then you accused me of making all kinds of insinuations. And launched into an aggressive and personal attack on me, my character, and my motives. All completely wrong because you completely mis-read my post. I respectfully request an apology.

- - - Updated - - -

MissionMan
Nope. I think it just happens with Arg at the moment. Everyone else seems to be able to distinguish between the two.

Rick. Can we close this thread. I find it hard to believe that Arg is doing anything other than trolling here. I've given him the benefit of the doubt but now I can come to no conclusion other than him being a troll or a complete idiot and I'm guessing it's the former.

More bullying.

May I please redirect visitors to this thread to the original post, post #1. If you don't own a mirrorless system, then why are you here, mounting big long lecturing arguments against mirrorless cameras? That's almost the perfect definition of trolling, yes? Yet I'm the troll, I'm argumentative? That's simply ironic.

Pro-mirrorless does not imply anti-DSLR. Please get over it and stop thinking that way. This is a pro-mirrorless thread in the Mirrorless forum, and that is all it is. It doesn't mean, signify, or imply anything about negative attitudes towards DSLR cameras.

If I can't mention a simple article on DPR about how good mirrorless cameras are getting, post #287, without being blasted from all sides and called a troll and requests for my thread to be closed, then people need to be looking at themselves, not at me, and asking themselves why are they so over-reactive and aggressive. And why are they doing it in the Mirrorless forum.

I request that this thread stays open.

I request that people who are primarily DSLR users respect the topic as per the first post, and either withdraw (hence creating a much less aggressive and bullying environment for the few mirrorless users who might want to communally discuss their gear with others who also own similar gear, to stick their head up without getting it knocked off), or participate as someone who has a genuine interest in moving primarily to mirrorless and therefore has some well-intentioned questions, rather than argumentative lectures, to put forward.

I request that people be much more courteous in this thread.

[Kym]

Warning: Thread closed for moderation

[ricktas]

I have re-opened the thread and we have removed a member from the site

[Boo53]

I guess I must have posted in this thread early on as it keeps coming up in my "threads you've posted" in list.

I've now caught up with the tail end and I'm wondering how many times it can go around in a circle before it disappears up its own fundamental orrifice

Anyway. to add another 2 cents worth. I have both a sony A7r & A7II and love them. The size is good because I like to go bushwalking and the lighter weight is great. Would I be bothered whether they have a mirror or not except for that - nope.

I like the image quality and I'm very happy with the quality of lenses that are available from zeiss in particular, and I can use my A mount G lens with little hassle, and have used a friend Canon L lens as well with good results.

If I was not already a sony shooter would I have changed, well perhaps not, I'm not generally an early adopter, but the fact that I could keep my existing lens and change would be tempting.

It is something for newer shooters to consider, but for those with existing setups, not as compelling.

[MissionMan]

I've changed my mind. I'm going with the mirrorless are better. I can then use it as a feeble means to boost my own ego and convince myself that it is purely my phenomenal skill levels that are allowing me to compete with the mirrorless users in the Ausphoto comps because I am at a distinct disadvantage and I'd like to respectfully respect that the likes of bcys1961 have points deducted due to having an unfair advantage. (Sorry bcys1961, no offence intended but your photos are pretty good and it must be that damn camera)

[arthurking83]

.....

But having said that, I keep having the same thoughts that the behemoth medium format cameras (except Leica S) would benefit greatly by removing the mirror. It'll likely make them handle more like current pro DSLRs.

It really wouldn't make all that much difference(having a mirror or not).

Reason is very simple: backward compatibility, and prospective future costs of any new lenses.

All the 'known' brands of MF systems rely heavily on one inescapable point .. that there are a multitude of lenses available for each respective system.
The advantage of a mirrorless camera is in that removing the mirror it makes the system less unwieldy.
The systems have already been engineered in a specific manner(ie. backfocus distances) .. so for those manufacturers to 'start fresh' (in a manner of speaking) .. means that to maintain this backward compatibility they still need to design the camera in a consistent manner.
People talk about adapters, but it should be remembered that for each interface(especially mechanical) there are tolerance issues. Quality can only suffer the more interfaces you add.

Phase one only recently announced a brand new model XF.
In an interview with the main designer, Lau Norgaard, Kevin Raber(LL) asks for the interest in satisfying reader curiosity .. why an OVF and not an EVF.
Lau's response was that they thought that the optical system is still better overall .. obviously for that form of system .. to cater to the demands of their intended customers.
While latency and dynamic range were sited as the two major reasons for this design choice, Lau obviously still thinks that OVFs are still an 'overall' better quality experience than any current EVF tech, despite all the advantages they could provide.

This is all via a video interview in LL on this new Phase One XF camera .. approx half way through the 30odd minutes of the video.

The comments made earlier on the future of the sales levels of mirrorless and mirrored cameras is hilarious!(to say the least, and in reality ... fanciful)
While mirrorless cameras have a lot going for them compared to DSLR, and the opposite is true for DSLR .. one thing that is blatantly obvious in the market(or market share) .. that limits the 'growth' of mirrorless cameras, is so obvious that not many folks seem to bother about it.

The manufacturers involved!!
Until Canon and Nikon redesign their leading models as mirrorless types, the market share for each respective type is about as fixed as it's ever going to be going into the future.
Until those two redesign their best selling models as mirrorless types, mirrorless cameras sales market share will not suddenly explode into a 50/50 split between the two types.
The last months CIPA figures are clear indications to this .. more probable .. future scenario.

All dedicated camera sales are still slowing or have stagnated, and the major issue for all camera manufacturers is not what design type they offer. The same problem that has hit all camera sales .. smartphone photography.
As smartphone cameras/software improves with each new iteration, it just drives one more nail into the dedicated camera sales coffin.

Mirrorless or mirrored, only the camera makers with enough current volume will survive the impending sales doom.

My way of seeing the future of the camera market is simple.
The vast majority of people buying cameras are like us(here in these forums, dedicated to photography, and all photography related discussions).
They are just everyday folks, that simply want/need a higher quality camera for when the need arises, that comes out when a special occasion is called for it to surface.
For almost all other camera related usage, the most compact and convenient device will do .. ie. the smartphone.
Taking such a user scenario into consideration and extrapolating(hypothesising) the most probable likely future sales situation .. mirrorless cameras are more likely to be hardest hit rather than DSLRs.

Most people already know that DSLRs are big and heavy dinousaurs, so their size and weight are expected to be so, and allowances are made for this.
But, if mirrorless cameras major advantage is in providing a smaller form factor .. and smartphone cameras can provide damn good image quality .. what actual advantage is the smaller mirrorless camera actually providing!!
Remember this scenario is not relevant to yourselves or myself .. we know this is not how cameras provide a certain level of quality.
But average Joe and Jane who know nothing of the inner qualities of camera gear don't know this. They see big camera where you look into it and know that it's going to produce high quality!

This fallacious notion that folks (pro or not) are wholesale switching to mirrorless from reflex is quite simply stupid!
The camera market is a lot more complex than that.
CIPA figures just released show that worldwide, DSLRs sales increased more than mirrorless did in the last reported period!!
[sarcasm-on]One of the major arguments that ML camera disciples always commented as a 'reason' for all of us to gravitate to ML cameras was that the tide was turnign towards an all mirrorless camera future, and that sales graphs proved this fact.[/sarcasm-off]


As if this is some point of proof that this is why mirrorless is the future of camera design ... or something idiotic like that.
On the whole, DSLR shipments increased more so compared to ML cameras for the month of April '15.

Look at Japan, which kind of proves a comment I've made a while back, on the topic or market maturity.
The problem with market maturity is that it's a bit of an unknown, other that a market hasn't reached maturity until sales figures vary over time. It may peak and trough at various times depending on some localised factors, such as model releases, sales pitches .. or other events(usually of a major type .. eg. Olympics).
Japan contracted for the month of April(compared to March) .. DSLR sales down to 96% levels .. mirrorless sales down to 89% of the March figures!
And these mirrorless crazies want us to believe that the market is where a truth is to be believed!!

One last point I'd like to specifically make on the sheer stupidity of these types comments of proof made by these people.
In the CIPA figures they list areas broken down into certain regions. Americas, Japan, Asia(), Europe, etc. One area they list is simply called Other.
Where this place/region is, is unknown to me(and not specifically explained in CIPA literature).
But what is interesting are the sales(actually shipment) figures for this area. We can only assume that shipments translate into sales, but this is impossible without insider info on this topic.
What is interesting are the figures provided by CIPA.

For April, DSLR camera shipments were 270% of March's figures, whereas ML shipments were only 60% of March figures!
DSLRs .. the almost extinct dinosaur! .. seems to have defied the odds in what is obviously a still yet to fully mature region of the world(very low sales figures) .. yet the new black(yep sarcasm again!) .. mirrorless camera is somehow the saviour of the world's photographers.

I like most of what Thom says. I think his repeated and incessant point about user interfaces on cameras is perfectly spot on. I'd love a more user friendly camera. If it had to be a ML .. it also needs a 2x(at least) better EVF(I can't live with the current gen tech).
But I think he's completely wrong in terms of more pixels.
I think he(along with most commentators) is right in that we don't actually need more of them .. although I've now been reconverted to the advantage of having more(just as many Canon owners will also be once they get their hands on 5Ds/r bodies!!
But he also thinks camera companies are going about achieving higher sales the wrong way .. through more pixels.
But ordinary people who want more .. need more pixels. Otherwise why would they buy them.

This is the new more law.

People will still purchase more camera as long as it gives them more(something else). They'll put up with a large heavy box(or a smaller lighter contraption) .. as long as it has more.
Why would they buy a 16Mp small lightweight hike with it anywhere device .. when their 20Mp smartphone is even smaller lighter more convenient and has more.
But, give them a 5Ds .. yeah it weighs a ton, it doesn't connect to the wifi .. let alone the net, and it not only weighs a ton, but it's lenses also weight a ton and half each too!
yet it has more, but not only more .. much much more .. more than 2x as much more than the weird attempt at a small lightweight device that has even less than their smartphone.
They don't care, nor understand that these cameras autofocus down to -3Ev now. To them this is gibberish elite haxor speak .. and as long as it uploads their favourite shot to FaceTube quickly .. they can upload a 25Mb jpg at 9000x6000 resolution and the now have more, and that's all that's important to them.

In the interview on LL, Lau makes an interesting point.
Some time back, supposed experts claimed the extinction of the MF system .. yet here are Phase One now with customer demand for a newer better system .. which they obliged with.

anyhow .. sorry for the long post.
Hopefully now this thread will die.

[swifty]

Don't worry AK. My comments regarding MF mirrorless is purely a mathematical one where you gain the most in body thickness reduction percentage-wise since medium formats have the largest mirror.
I'm aware of the practicality of actually doing so in the existing market, much like the issue of legacy F-mount lenses for Nikon.
But from a handling perspective, from my experience with medium format reflex cameras is that eye-level shooting start to become unwieldy, granted I'm a small guy (I can still handle integrated-grip pro DSLRs quite well though). Although waist level shooting they handle quite well though. Though it's out of my price range, I'm really glad the Phase One XF reintroduced the waist level VF to digital MF.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and in terms of VF I'm still a bit of a die hard OVF guy. I think I've repeated myself many times.
But given space requirements aren't so stringent on a largish camera and there would be space for a stronger power supply, I'd thought it'd be easier to make good, large EVFs that rival current state of the art smartphone screens. Or just re-use the best of whatever's available off the shelf since there would be so much development in the area from the smartphone industry anyways. It'd probably still need to be shrunk a little though.
As MF is not really used all that much in the sports/wildlife genre (less frame rate requirements), if the EVFs get as good as the best small digital display medium then even I'd say it'll be good enough.

[arthurking83]

In a studio environment where lighting is almost always controlled, an EVF wouldn't be so much of a burden(in an MF camera) .. but many really high end pros use MF cameras for all manner of shooting scenarios.
eg. outdoor portraits, landscapes or whatever. Outdoors, while you can control lighting in terms of exposure, you can't control the usual massive dynamic range experienced.
You either see shadow OR highlight details .. on an electronic screen .. very rarely both at the same time in real time.
And then like the man said .. the question of latency.
The harder the push to reduce latency and dynamic range, the more processing that the evf requires(to display all this data in real time) .. the more power this processing requires .. the lower the battery life .. etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong either .. we're probably very similar, of not the same, in terms of our philosophies with respect to EVF vs OVF .. and I've always been a big fan of EVFs, in terms of future potential.
I'm not all that big a fan of some of the features that are claimed to be an advantage(eg. the focus peaking indicators) of even tho on paper they appear to be of value.
I wasn't completely impressed with the focus peaking of the Sony A7 when I had a try. (with the 55/1.8 mounted)
It was commented on in a DPR article too when they tried it. It wasn't as spot on when the DOF was critically narrow.
Obviously this may improve as AF sensor technology improves too, but I have no idea of how it actually works.
Maybe the new A7II is better.

While there are no perfect focus assist aides in current optical viewfinders either .. from what I've seen(experienced) it's pretty much of a muchness.
It's sad that the Katzeye company were forced to close shop, as their screens are an almost perfect blend of usability and accuracy.

Totally agree with your comments re the use of some of the technology the small displays we now see(ie. smartphones/tablets/etc).
My biggest gripe with the EVFs I've experienced is that I can't get past the magnified pixel experience.
That is, while these EVF displays are super massively dense in pixels per inch terms, looking at them via a magnified ocular system at close range produces this annoying(to me) magnified pixel feeling .. plus the latency and dynamic range issues.

[swifty]

Just a heads up that the highest specced EVF now is probably the Leica Q. It'd be interesting to benchmark that unit against current peers.

[I @ M]

Well after so many pages of to and fro I thought I would post an image that simply couldn't have been done mirrorless.



I don't care what anyone says, it simply wouldn't have been possible without a mirror involved.





Did any of you really expect me to be serious?



Go out and takes some photos and stop staring at computer screens.

[swifty]

Go out and takes some photos and stop staring at computer screens.

Sorry, I can't. My 5 month old keeps me home bound. So you're gonna have to put up with more of my ramblings unfortunately. :P

[MissionMan]

You do realise the reason we talk like this is because we're at work when we can't take photos

I would be interested to see where this goes long term. Progression of technology is mind blowing when you consider it. Looking back 7 years or so before the iPhone was released, if people told you the biggest phone manufacturers in the world would be Samsung and Apple, most would have laughed because nokia and blackberry ruled the roost. Its a good indication of how far things can come in 5-7 years.

It wouldn't surprise me if something like a variation of OVF with HUD is the future but a lot more advanced than the current versions in DSLR's which just put a focus point. If you had to start including see through high resolution displays (which are already available but unlikely to be compact enough), you could easily find yourself in a position where you have the best of both worlds, or even the choice of EVF and OVF depending on your preference. It may even be some form of one way mirror which allows you still see through the viewfinder but have have the sensor still receiving the picture so it can use a combination of focus mechanisms. I'm guess at this stage, it may already be available in some form.

Of course, it could also go the way of EVF which is so advanced that you can't actually tell you are looking at an EVF.

Either way, the progression of mirrorless and mirrored cameras is good for us because us as consumers benefit from the improvements in technology.

[arthurking83]

...... if people told you the biggest phone manufacturers in the world would be Samsung and Apple,

.... Its a good indication of how far things can come in 5-7 years.......

and further to that, who'd have thought that these two companies would come to dominate the world of photography!

back in an age when Fuji, Kodak, Canon and Nikon were the dominant forces in world photography.

[I @ M]

and further to that, who'd have thought that these two companies would come to dominate the world of photography

I reckon that should read phoneography, it bears the same resemblance to photography as a tinny music track on spotify does to a good quality cd ( let's not mention vinyl here ) does to music.

[MissionMan]

I reckon that should read phoneography, it bears the same resemblance to photography as a tinny music track on spotify does to a good quality cd ( let's not mention vinyl here ) does to music.

I actually think the opposite. I think if anything it has exploded the world of photography and I think it introduces a younger generation to photography and the merits of it. Yes, there are some horrible pictures, namely the selfie generation, but it's not all bad. I think some of the filters actually allow people to explore photography at a light level and potential engage their interest.

[ameerat42]

You might have a point, MM. My nephew thinks his iPhone pics are horrible in IQ. At least he can recognise that he would like a "better" camera.
An at least he is now trying to improve on other areas of photography with it. (Hmm! I wonder if it was a hint to me about a camera???)

[I @ M]

I actually think the opposite. I think if anything it has exploded the world of photography and I think it introduces a younger generation to photography and the merits of it.

To a certain point I agree, I would rather look at it as exploding the world of instant gratification ( + sharing ) image acquisition, in much the same way as when digital cameras hit the market.
In the overall picture ( pardon the pun ) the number of people that start truly exploring photography from having their interest piqued by their phones would be a minute percentage of phone owners in general and phone camera users in particular. Once again overall, the number of people who went on to truly explore photography after buying a new fangled digital compact camera were probably a minute percentage of the actual sales numbers over the years as well.
But yes, if history repeats as it did by getting more people into photography with the dawning of the digital camera age then there will be more come on board as you suggest by the use of their phones. Any number of new (serious) participants in the sport is a good thing and whilst there are some very good phone images out there they are still drowned under the tide of effluent that comprises the vast majority of phone pics.

[arthurking83]

Doesn't matter which way you look at it .. or label it.

Photography is photography, and while some don't like certain results, nor do they care for these particular workflows .. (which I include myself in this group) .. the end result is impossible to ignore.

Apple/Samsung dominate the world of digital image capture.

Whether you agree it's photography or not .. no one in their right mind would have predicted a few years ago that one of those manufacturers on their own(let alone the two of them!) would have the products that produce 5x as many digital images around the globe.... as Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta/Sony, Fuji, Kodak, etc ... all combined, now do.

I suppose that one day into the future, things may change, yet again.

We may see a total demise of a particular brand, or device/format type to be replaced by another(or one currently gathering momentum).
We may see the traditional 'camera' heavyweights produce new devices that will turn the camera/smartphone market on it's head in a few years.