Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?

[3kramd5]

The common cited advantages to mirrorless cameras are sensor based metering, focus acquisition, and subject recognition, which an SLR can do with mirror lockup. On the flip side, a mirrorless camera is incapable of viewfinding through the lens without powering the sensor, readout electronics, processor, and display, and it can not make use of off sensor AF or metering sensors designed specifically for those purposes rather than image capture. Additionally, silent shooting, focus peeking, and electronic shutters are sometimes cited as mirrorless advantages, but they aren’t unique capabilities either.

I look at it differently. I think modern reflex cameras today are simply mirrorless cameras being forced to support a legacy design. If you think about it, all modern reflex cameras are mirrorless cameras in mirror-lockup or live view mode (mostly). That means that it has two separate operating paradigms, one in OVF mode, and one in LV mode. In OVF mode, you can't shoot video or use subject detection and in LV mode, you can't use the off-sensor PDAF or OVF. It's also larger as a result of having to house the mirror and accompanying hardware.

If a reflex camera dropped the mirror, and made the camera perform just as well in LV mode than its reflex peers it wouldn't need to bother with the entire mirror-thingamajig.

EXCEPT: you are giving up capability by eliminating the mirror (unpowered TTL view-finding, and use of purpose-built metering and AF sensors).

But it doesn't go the other way though, because if a reflex camera dropped mirrorless mode, you just stripped away 50% of what mirrorless can do today and still have to deal with the physical limitations of the mirror which will never move as quickly as not needing one to begin with.

Why would anyone do that?

With a mirror, you in effect can have full mirrorless operation in lockup mode, and you have full SLR operation in standard mode.

Your view hinges upon mirrorless cameras being capable of everything reflex cameras are, and that can never be (the exceptions above are absolutes without entirely new hard to imagine technology). Then from that impossible position you take away from a reflex camera half of what it can readily do.

Take the best mirrorless camera in the world: A9, and add a mirror+off sensor PDAF unit+off sensor metering unit, and you have a more capable camera than A9. The limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used. The limitations of not having a mirror play always.

 

[fullstop]

EXCEPT: you are giving up capability by eliminating the mirror (unpowered TTL view-finding,

no, not on current Canon DSLRs with LCD overlay over matte screen. No power, no clear OVF.

 

[3kramd5]

EXCEPT: you are giving up capability by eliminating the mirror (unpowered TTL view-finding,

no, not on current Canon DSLRs with LCD overlay over matte screen. No power, no clear OVF.

I can see through the lens in my viewfinder even if the battery is removed from my camera, therefore: yes, I do have unpowered TTL viewfinding with my canon DSLRs (one generation old, but I assure you that is still the case). Did you think the body was generating its own power?

In actual use it draws some power, but as previously mentioned is insignificant relative to:

powering the sensor, readout electronics, processor, and display...

If course the sensor, processor, etc are powered even with the mirror down, but not nearly as much is drawn as when reading and rendering the data through to the screen, and powering the screen.

I tried using my A7R2 like I can my SLRs, waiting for a bird to pop up from a nest or mammal to appear at the den. It doesn’t work. The battery drains exponentially faster. That’s not how I always shoot, but when necessary, it makes all the difference.

 

[fullstop]

in all Canon EOS DSLRs with LCD overlay you can see thru the viewfinder without battery, but you will NOT get a clear image.

Anyway, it is pointless to even discuss this. Any digital camera is utterly useless without battery power. And almost all SLRs too.

 

[3kramd5]

in all Canon EOS DSLRs with LCD overlay you can see thru the viewfinder without battery, but you will NOT get a clear image.

Anyway, it is pointless to even discuss this. Any digital camera is utterly useless without battery power. And almost all SLRs too.

Of course. That was only to be illustrative of the fact that my statement was accurate where you said it was not. No one would try to use a digital camera without a battery. Illustration aside, we are left with the truth of the statement you argued was not: “you are giving up capability by eliminating the mirror (unpowered TTL view-finding.”

If you prefer, replace “un” with “minimally-“. Both are true, but the latter applies to real usage.

Although no current SLR has an EVF, nothing about the technology precludes one. No mirrorless camera has an optical viewfinder, nor the ancillary capabilities one brings; technology precludes it.

 

[fullstop]

talk what you want. DSLRs are end of the line. Mirrorless can do ANYTHING a DSLR can and then a whole lot more. Its about time. Finally getting rid of all that anachronistic 19th/early 20th century mechanical steam punk stuff stuff in cameras - like slapping mirrors and moving shutter blades.

 

[3kramd5]

talk what you want. DSLRs are end of the line.

It’s probably headed there, but is not there yet.

Mirrorless can do ANYTHING a DSLR can and then a whole lot more.

Kindly diagram for me how a mirrorless camera can use an optical TTL viewfinder*, and then name one of the whole lot more things one can do which SLR can not (other than “not have a mirrorbox”). When you do, I’ll own my error.



*I’ll give you one in text: VF assembly directly in line with lens, with a sensor assembly which slides in place in front of it. Not particularly useful, but technically feasible.

 

[fullstop]

Mirrorless can do ANYTHING a DSLR can and then a whole lot more.

kindly diagram for me how a mirrorless camera can use an optical TTL viewfinder, and then name one of the whole lot more things one can do which SLR can not. When you do, I’ll own my error.

absolutely vibration-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror.
absolutely noise-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror.
any number fps. Not possible with slapping mirror.
no lubricants in camera. Not possible with slapping mirror.
no front-/back focus issues. Not possible with separate phase-af unit behind moving mirror/submirror assembly.

and then yet another whole lot of things, DSLRs can not do natively, but only when switched to mirrorless operation (live view). Like WYSIWIG viewfinder/LCD. Any sort of video capture.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR.

By the way, how many MILCs have no physical shutter?

 

[3kramd5]

Mirrorless can do ANYTHING a DSLR can and then a whole lot more.

kindly diagram for me how a mirrorless camera can use an optical TTL viewfinder, and then name one of the whole lot more things one can do which SLR can not. When you do, I’ll own my error.

absolutely vibration-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror.
absolutely noise-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror.
any number fps. Not possible with slapping mirror.
no lubricants in camera. Not possible with slapping mirror.
no front-/back focus issues. Not possible with separate phase-af unit behind moving mirror/submirror assembly.

and then yet another whole lot of things, DSLRs can not do natively, but only when switched to mirrorless operation (live view). Like WYSIWIG viewfinder/LCD. Any sort of video capture.

Almost all of those things can be done with SLR by locking up the mirror, which is native functionality on every DSLR I can think of made in the past >decade. I’ll give you half credit for no lubricants (could be done, but wouldn’t because it would be very expensive - I guess lubricants nerf SLR because they’re cheaper?).

Even if you narrowly define an electronic viewfinder as a screen with a series of lenses in front of it that you stick up to your face, nothing about an SLR precludes one, you just have to pick a place for it. Top left when viewed from behind (“Rangefinder style”) would work.

You said it yourself: switch to mirrorless operation. You can do that with an SLR. Try the opposite, and consider that in context of a discussion of power consumption, in which you (correctly) noted that battery capacity is especially important to mirrorless cameras.

 

[jayphotoworks]

Take the best mirrorless camera in the world: A9, and add a mirror+off sensor PDAF unit+off sensor metering unit, and you have a more capable camera than A9. The limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used. The limitations of not having a mirror play always.

You first say that the A9 can be improved to be a super camera by adding a mirror, off sensor PDAF and off sensor metering unit.

talk what you want. DSLRs are end of the line.

It’s probably headed there, but is not there yet.

But then you say you think we are headed towards mirrorless. Which is it? Contrary to the advantages you think that DSLRs have, even you don't sound convinced that DSLRs have a future...

You also mention that the limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used, but the neccessity for dual operation because of the mirror is the actual issue. There are certain features that do not work in reflex operation. You will never get rid of the mirror blackout or shoot video in reflex operation. That means if you could stay in mirrorless operation with all of the performance of existing legacy reflex cameras, the reflex bits become redundant. That's why adding a mirror to an A9 makes no sense. It doesn't add any new features to the A9 that the A9 doesn't already have and it would suddenly need an OVF that doesn't benefit any of its other modes and would make the camera more difficult to use.

Not needing the mirror box leads to mirrorless cameras having the option to be made much smaller than equivalent reflex cameras. I said "option" because not all manufacturers embraced this route. M43 strategically took advantage of this by scaling down their sensor and matching some truly tiny zooms and pancakes with equally small bodies. Look at an E-PL8 and a Canon SL2 for example. Furthermore, mirrorless bodies across the board have 100% VF coverage and a bright EVF as it comes right from the sensor path. DSLRS have much more variability and many lower cost DSLRs have cheap pentamirrors and only 95% VF coverage.

If you were then to argue that an SL2 can go into live view mode to remove those limitations, than you have to consider why it should even have those limitations to start if it could be designed without a mirror to start with?

 

[jayphotoworks]

Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR.

By the way, how many MILCs have no physical shutter?

If that global shutter eventually outperforms both the mirror operation speed and the physical shutter speed, wouldn't that camera be better off without a mirror? AF can be done off the sensor and you would have a clean uninterrupted view entirely.

 

[3kramd5]

Take the best mirrorless camera in the world: A9, and add a mirror+off sensor PDAF unit+off sensor metering unit, and you have a more capable camera than A9. The limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used. The limitations of not having a mirror play always.

You first say that the A9 can be improved to be a super camera by adding a mirror, off sensor PDAF and off sensor metering unit.

talk what you want. DSLRs are end of the line.

It’s probably headed there, but is not there yet.

But then you say you think we are headed towards mirrorless. Which is it?

It's both. The fact that the mirror brings some advantages doesn't mean manufacturers won't eventually stop making them, or largely scale back. Dedicated cameras bring advantages over cellular all-in-wonders, but dedicated cameras are becoming niche / on their way out in favor of phones. Large formats are better than 135-format film, but the latter all but replaced the former, before digital all but replaced 135-format film. Laptops bring some advantages over tablets, but the former are being slowly replaced by the latter.

Contrary to the advantages you think that DSLRs have, even you don't sound convinced that DSLRs have a future...

Mine are independent assessments.

You also mention that the limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used, but the neccessity for dual operation because of the mirror is the actual issue.

Alternately, the necessity of a mirror to overcome limitations of mirror-less, e.g. power consumption, is an issue.

That's why adding a mirror to an A9 makes no sense. It doesn't add any new features to the A9 that the A9 doesn't already have and it would suddenly need an OVF that doesn't benefit any of its other modes and would make the camera more difficult to use.

I owned an a7R2, and I used an a99ii quite a bit. They share much of their internals, yet the a99ii is a much better camera, because of its mirror (albeit one which does not move). The autofocus performance is substantially better, due to the mirror and off-sensor AF unit it facilitates, which was designed for AF rather than for image capture with tiny pixels which each filter out a substantial portion of the visible spectrum for the sake of color reproduction. Likewise, in many situations, especially low light, my 1Dx viewfinder is immeasurably nicer to use than the EVF was.

If you were then to argue that an SL2 can go into live view mode to remove those limitations, than you have to consider why it should even have those limitations to start if it could be designed without a mirror to start with?

Because there are also advantages to using a mirror. That's the point. There are advantages to both methods. One configuration facilitates both methods. The other configuration only facilitates one of them. In some situations, putting a camera on a tripod is better than holding it. In others, holding it is advantageous. I’d rather a camera which allows me to use the tripod than one which goes all in on the hand held advantages by removing the attach point.

With a few more generations, some of the gaps will close (AF will likely get close, EVF response will likely get close, and maybe they'll come up with something to reduce eye-fatigue induced by EVF). One gap will never close: power consumption, which was the genesis of this discussion.

 

[Talys]

Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR.

By the way, how many MILCs have no physical shutter?

If that global shutter eventually outperforms both the mirror operation speed and the physical shutter speed, wouldn't that camera be better off without a mirror? AF can be done off the sensor and you would have a clean uninterrupted view entirely.

The answer is, sometimes.

At some point in the future, batteries will be so good that they will last virtually forever, and EVFs will be so good that they will be indistinguishable from OVFs.

If I'm unable to tell if a viewfinder is EVF or OVF, and the battery will outlast even my most strenuous use, I'll won't care, right? But that day is not today or tomorrow. As someone who might stare at a bird through a viewfinder for an hour before snapping a shot, this is not a good use case for an electronic viewfinder. Now, imagine if you were an investigator who was looking through a camera like a pair of binoculars.

It's also not as simple as "AF can be done off the sensor and you would have a clean uninterrupted view entirely."

Currently, for general purposes, only dual pixel autofocus is really comparable to dedicated AF sensor in user experience, and even that is a bit slower than a dedicated AF sensor in speed. The way Sony does it at the moment is that they rob rows of pixels to use for pixel detection autofocus out of the primary sensor for autofocus purposes, and this is visible in some cases. Or it can do Contrast Detect autofocus, which has terrible speed.

Nothing on the market is comparable to a 1DX autofocus speed when you throw on extenders, which is a core requirement of a lot of the wildlife photography and professional sports photography.

Will it get there? Probably. Will I buy one eventually? Definitely.

But then again, I buy a lot of stuff I end up not using much. And today, it's good enough for me to use for fun, and maybe good enough for general photography. But it isn't nearly good enough for wildlife or low light photography, yet. And what the only pro mirrorless system offers on one hand (like MF viewfinder magnification) it often takes away with the other (like focus by wire).

Sony is just an unhappy compromise for me, much more so than DSLR. Maybe the Canon will be a happier compromise; we'll see, but I don't think my DSLRs are going anywhere, any time soon.


Going back to your original question, would the camera be better without a mirror. As someone who does like to change lenses on the field, I found that I never did so on the A7R3, because the damn sensor attracted dust like honey to bees. It seemed like if I swapped lenses on the field, dust would get onto the sensor, and that would be visible on every single photo.

On my DSLR, sure, you get dust. But most of the dust is restricted to the mirror and the Fresnel at the top. Dust rarely ever gets on the sensor, so leaving dust to clean later on is not really an issue.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR.

By the way, how many MILCs have no physical shutter?

If that global shutter eventually outperforms both the mirror operation speed and the physical shutter speed, wouldn't that camera be better off without a mirror? AF can be done off the sensor and you would have a clean uninterrupted view entirely.

Possibly (Talys summed up the why not's), but my point was simply that Mr. Mode Dial's assertions about things impossible with a dSLR was more of his uninformed babble.

 

[Don Haines]

Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR.

By the way, how many MILCs have no physical shutter?

If that global shutter eventually outperforms both the mirror operation speed and the physical shutter speed, wouldn't that camera be better off without a mirror? AF can be done off the sensor and you would have a clean uninterrupted view entirely.

The answer is, sometimes.

At some point in the future, batteries will be so good that they will last virtually forever, and EVFs will be so good that they will be indistinguishable from OVFs.

If I'm unable to tell if a viewfinder is EVF or OVF, and the battery will outlast even my most strenuous use, I'll won't care, right? But that day is not today or tomorrow. As someone who might stare at a bird through a viewfinder for an hour before snapping a shot, this is not a good use case for an electronic viewfinder. Now, imagine if you were an investigator who was looking through a camera like a pair of binoculars.

It's also not as simple as "AF can be done off the sensor and you would have a clean uninterrupted view entirely."

Currently, for general purposes, only dual pixel autofocus is really comparable to dedicated AF sensor in user experience, and even that is a bit slower than a dedicated AF sensor in speed. The way Sony does it at the moment is that they rob rows of pixels to use for pixel detection autofocus out of the primary sensor for autofocus purposes, and this is visible in some cases. Or it can do Contrast Detect autofocus, which has terrible speed.

Nothing on the market is comparable to a 1DX autofocus speed when you throw on extenders, which is a core requirement of a lot of the wildlife photography and professional sports photography.

Will it get there? Probably. Will I buy one eventually? Definitely.

But then again, I buy a lot of stuff I end up not using much. And today, it's good enough for me to use for fun, and maybe good enough for general photography. But it isn't nearly good enough for wildlife or low light photography, yet. And what the only pro mirrorless system offers on one hand (like MF viewfinder magnification) it often takes away with the other (like focus by wire).

Sony is just an unhappy compromise for me, much more so than DSLR. Maybe the Canon will be a happier compromise; we'll see, but I don't think my DSLRs are going anywhere, any time soon.


Going back to your original question, would the camera be better without a mirror. As someone who does like to change lenses on the field, I found that I never did so on the A7R3, because the damn sensor attracted dust like honey to bees. It seemed like if I swapped lenses on the field, dust would get onto the sensor, and that would be visible on every single photo.

On my DSLR, sure, you get dust. But most of the dust is restricted to the mirror and the Fresnel at the top. Dust rarely ever gets on the sensor, so leaving dust to clean later on is not really an issue.

+1

Well said

 

[3kramd5]

Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR.

By the way, how many MILCs have no physical shutter?

If that global shutter eventually outperforms both the mirror operation speed and the physical shutter speed, wouldn't that camera be better off without a mirror? AF can be done off the sensor and you would have a clean uninterrupted view entirely.

Possibly (Talys summed up the why not's), but my point was simply that Mr. Mode Dial's assertions about things impossible with a dSLR was more of his uninformed babble.

It doesn’t even need to be global to satisfy his criteria, merely fully electronic.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Mirrorless can do ANYTHING a DSLR can and then a whole lot more.

kindly diagram for me how a mirrorless camera can use an optical TTL viewfinder, and then name one of the whole lot more things one can do which SLR can not. When you do, I’ll own my error.

absolutely vibration-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror.
absolutely noise-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror.
any number fps. Not possible with slapping mirror.
no lubricants in camera. Not possible with slapping mirror.
no front-/back focus issues. Not possible with separate phase-af unit behind moving mirror/submirror assembly.

and then yet another whole lot of things, DSLRs can not do natively, but only when switched to mirrorless operation (live view). Like WYSIWIG viewfinder/LCD. Any sort of video capture.

Is that really what all the fuss is about? I have never had a problems with any of the items on your list and if they are the main reasons why someone might consider switching to a mirrorless camera then I would rather stay with my existing DSLR.
Taking your points one by one:
absolutely vibration-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror. - I can't see why that would be a problem. The mirror in my camera has never slapped, and if there is some vibration caused by the mirror lifting up and dropping back down again then that would only be visible if a slow shutter speed is being used. In most of the shots I take the subject is moving so I need to use a reasonably fast shutter speed anyway and for the type of work I do this is completely irrelevant.
absolutely noise-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror. Again this is not an issue. I do not take any pictures in libraries or anywhere else where silent shooting is required, and I find that silent shooting mode on the 5D mk4 is fairly quiet anyway.
any number fps. Not possible with slapping mirror. This is an exaggeration. Unlimited fps is never going to be possible on any type of camera because there will always be an amount of time required to read the data from sensor into the buffer, and the lens will require time to refocus between shots. Of course I have assumed that the subject will be moving and it will be necessary to refocus between each frame. If it is not then why is the burst speed even relevant?
no lubricants in camera. Not possible with slapping mirror. I know this was an issue with some Nikon cameras in the past but I have never had this problem with any of my Canons.
no front-/back focus issues. Not possible with separate phase-af unit behind moving mirror/submirror assembly. Last week I calibrated all my lenses and only two of them required an AFMA of more than 3 points. Once they have been calibrated the focussing works perfectly so yes, it can be a problem with some lenses but the solution is fairly simple.
However what I really want is to be able to see the scene I am trying to capture without the intervention of any electronics. I like using an optical viewfinder, and have yet to find an EVF that I feel comfortable with.

 

[fullstop]

well to me
* no vibration
* silent operation and
* no back/front-focus
* and very importantly: small size camera body
are rather convincing advantages. It is more than what I got since switching from film to digital.

So I am looking forward to getting a fully capable, universal small-body FF mirrorless camera - "hopefully some day soon". Ideally sized somewhere between Sony RX-1R II and Sony A7 1st gen. Or in other words just a bit larger than an EOS M5.

I'll [only] buy a small set of compact, native lenses between 20mm and 150mm. Ideally very compact f/4 zooms and/or extremely compact, moderately fast primes [f/1.8 - 2.8 - depending on FL], since I rarely use longer tele lenses. For the rare occasions I will either use my existing EF glass - adapter no problem - or rent what's needed. And when i use tele or other big/heavy lenses I use a tripod, so small body/small grip no issue for me.

 

[3kramd5]

well to me
* no vibration Not unique to mirrorless and thus not an advantage of mirrorless but rather a shared capability of mirrorless and reflex using mirror lockup
* silent operation and Not unique to mirrorless and thus not an advantage of mirrorless but rather a shared capability of mirrorless and reflex using mirror lockup
* no back/front-focus Regarding focus errors introduced by misalignment of the off sensor PDAF unit: Not unique to mirrorless and thus not an advantage of mirrorless but rather a shared capability of mirrorless and reflex using mirror lockup.
* and very importantly: small size camera body
are rather convincing advantages. It is more than what I got since switching from film to digital.

So, once one identifies the real difference, the goal post is moved to “size.” One wonders why you want 135-format, since that drives size significantly relative to smaller sensors.

Also, after endless pages of consternation about a 16% decrease from desired battery capacity being a significant impact, there is no acknowledgement that reflex possesses a significant operational advantage over mirrorless: power consumption. Strange.