Camera/photography buffs...what makes mirrorless cameras better?

Jbird

Jbird

Kick Henry Jackassowski
I've been hearing about mirrorless cameras in the past couple of days on FB posts from a few friends of mine that are professional photographers.

What makes them so much better than a 'regular' DSLR? A good DSLR will take amazing pictures, so will the pics that a mirrorless camera takes really be THAT much better?

Looks like I could buy a cheap DSLR for roughly $399. Looks like entry level mirrorless cameras near the same specs are roughly $600.
 
All it really means is that instead of having a pick-off mirror relaying a version of what you might see in the image to the viewfinder, you see the actual digital image as seen by the sensor. This just means what you see is what you will get, rather than 'pretty close' approximation. It's up to you to decide if that is important to you right now. In 5 years or so, it will probably be more like the film vs digital debate. Prety much every camera will be mirrorless, except the economy models.
 
One of the other advantages of a mirrorless camera is since there is no mirror to move up and down the performance is so much better as the frames per second is increased. Entry level Sony A6000 can do 11 fps. For some performance is important. YMMV
 
they don't have those pesky mirrors. they're also working on eliminating the smoke.

the thing that actually makes a difference is the resolution of the camera's CCD sensor.

Mirrors are a by-product of film photography and single lense reflex or SLR cameras (as pioneered by Nikon). They allowed the photographer to look through the actual lense that would record the image to film, as opposed to looking through a view-finder which tried to approximate the area of the image that the lense would capture. While you looked through the SLR lense with a mirror, when you took the picture the mirror would flip up, temporarily block the photographer's view, and allow the image to hit the film (for the length of time the shutter is set to).

They don't really make sense with digital photography and it's curious they didn't just introduce digital cameras without mirrors when they first came out. In fact SLR bodies are way bigger than they need to be as they're not holding rolls of film any longer. I think the manufacturers wanted to make cameras that seemed familiar, meaty, and expensive as opposed to redesigning them appropriately for the missing film medium.

Another episode of Tales of the Known.
 
The vestigal DSLR mirror was probably there because the screens on DSLRs were low-resolution. High-resolution displays are a relatively new development.

DSLR bodies have probably stayed big because they need room for batteries and electronics. And SLR cameras already had very functional designs—big grip on the right, lens offset to the left for adjusting, and flat bottom with a bolt hole for tripod mounting. They’re kind of like Leo Fender’s guitar designs—it’s hard to beat the functionality he innovated.
 
There is something familiar and calming about hearing and feeling the mirror flip in a (D)SLR. I also find it easier to hold and steady a larger bodied camera than a little point and shoot.
 
One thing that doesn't often get mentioned is that with a mirror, the autofocus mechanism is "guessing" exactly where the sensor is going to be in relation to the lens in order to focus. DSLRs have to have the focus calibrated to account for distance from the lens to the sensor. Different lenses requires slightly different calibration.

In a mirrorless camera, the focus mechanism is getting its feed from the sensor. Focusing is a closed loop process. No calibration needed.

Mirrorless cameras have fewer moving parts.

On the down side, mirrorless cameras require an LCD display inside the viewfinder which saps battery life.
 
jp_nyc said:
The vestigal DSLR mirror was probably there because the screens on DSLRs were low-resolution. High-resolution displays are a relatively new development.

DSLR bodies have probably stayed big because they need room for batteries and electronics. And SLR cameras already had very functional designs—big grip on the right, lens offset to the left for adjusting, and flat bottom with a bolt hole for tripod mounting. They’re kind of like Leo Fender’s guitar designs—it’s hard to beat the functionality he innovated.
Click to expand...

It's easy to find uses for the non-functional design after the fact. Early SLRs just had a somewhat flat body designed to spool film from one side to the other until they made the auto-winders which were fat and doubled as grips. Unlike the auto-winder, the offset body was designed solely to fit comfortably against the human frame whilst plucking strings.
 
To me, the answer is nothing. I prefer DSLR mirror cameras. I suppose one could make the case for a small body camera that is super easy to carry and capture a lot of the mirror SLR functionality. In the photo thread I learned some of these have a USB charging capability, which is cool. I still prefer a full frame mirror DSLR.
 
Last edited:
I've never really looked in to them seriously because my lenses wouldn't work on them, and I'm really in love with my lenses.
 
I have an old-fashioned, APS-C Canon EOS 40D (10 MPX), and frankly that's been fine for me. When it's time to replace it, I will definitely consider one of the full-frame mirrorless cameras but I don't really see a need at this point.
 
Since I work in the photographic industry, I've had quite a few DSLR's over the years. Canon 20D, 40D, 1DSMKIII, 6D. Recently I sold my Canon 6D including my 24-105L, 70-200 f2.8L and got a Sony A7III with their similar lens for very no out of pocket. Mirrorless is then future and Sony leads the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top