# Completely lost



## soufiej

I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.  

Anyone care to 'splain it to me?


----------



## tirediron

Because people buy them.


----------



## ceejtank

They have their uses. My buddy shot some good photos at the last MMA fight using one.  They take great quality pictures.  But like lots of other things, its just an option.  Preferences.


----------



## photoguy99

Mirrorless cameras can be built much much lighter and smaller than reflex cameras. Might as well ask why anything smaller than a 4x5 exists.


----------



## sashbar

soufiej said:


> I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.
> 
> Anyone care to 'splain it to me?



For the same reason why flat screen TVs came instead of the old bulky boxes. It is just a more modern, more promising technology.


----------



## robbins.photo

tirediron said:


> Because people buy them.



There you go, using that "Logic" thing again.  Sheesh.

Lol


----------



## Ysarex

Removing the vibration causing, exposure delaying, complex-moving-parts mirror assembly allows a shorter sensor flange distance which then permits the design of far superior wide angle lenses. No matter what SLR you own you can't get a lens as good as the 14mm f/2.8 on my Fuji, and lenses take photos.

Joe


----------



## Ilovemycam

soufiej said:


> I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.
> 
> Anyone care to 'splain it to me?




I wont carry round a bulky dslr unless it is sports.


----------



## Light Guru

soufiej said:


> I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.
> 
> Anyone care to 'splain it to me?



Who cares what people use. 

STOP thinking so much about gear and START thinking more about the images you make.


----------



## robbins.photo

Light Guru said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.
> 
> Anyone care to 'splain it to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what people use.
> 
> STOP thinking so much about gear and START thinking more about the images you make.
Click to expand...


Wait, I'm supposed to be taking pictures with this thing?  Huh.. wow.  Wish someone would have mentioned that earlier.  Lol


----------



## MOREGONE

Having only used the Sony NEX series, I would consider them to be "Smart" cameras compared to a DSLR in addition to having APS-C sensors in a small(er) body. The NEX cameras have apps like Time Lapse that you can purchase and install that are really useful and even have wifi. While connected to WiFi I could post directly to Facebook from the camera. Not that I did it a lot, mostly because it was clunky, but the concept is cool. Future of Cameras IMO.


----------



## soufiej

Light Guru said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.
> 
> Anyone care to 'splain it to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what people use.
> 
> STOP thinking so much about gear and START thinking more about the images you make.
Click to expand...



No offense intended - really - but in the short time I've been on this forum I've seen this answer several times.  Sort of like on the guitar forums when you get the constant response, "It's only the playin' that matters."  Or the umbrella forums and the "it's only the rain that matters" answer.  Hey! sometimes it's the sleet!  And the frogs!!!

Of course it's only the use of an item that matters in the end but telling people to "stop thinking" is, I think, one of the dumbest answers anyone can give to another human being.  I wouldn't get on an automotive forum and respond to an answer about a strange smell coming from under the dash with, "Stop thinking about smells so much and start thinking about the driving you're doing."  I wouldn't go on a forum about food and recipes and tell someone to "Stop thinking about the fire on your arm and start thinking more about the taste of the sauce."  There's actually quite a few places and situations where I would not tell someone to stop thinking.  I don't know, is there a tight rope walking forum?  Doesn't matter, who the hell wants to talk about rosin?  

Again, I've only been here for less than a full week. But the "stop thinking" answer seems to have worn old already.  If you don't want to respond to the op, why bother posting anything?  If your only response is, "It's only the end result that matters", why bother at all?  Don't you have a cat to comb?  A sensor to clean?  A booger to pick?  

"Stop thinking" is just the dumbest answer I can imagine.  To any question.  


Now, I hope this doesn't turn into a thread where people start trashing the idea of asking about gear vs thinking about taking photos.  That wasn't my intent either.  I get the stop thinking answer.  So, OK, I stopped thinking about gear.  Happy?  


Sh*t!  Now I'm thinking about gear again!

Thanks a whole f'ing lot!


----------



## Trever1t

Do you have 2 user names here?????


----------



## Light Guru

soufiej said:


> "Stop thinking" is just the dumbest answer I can imagine.  To any question.



I didn't say to stop thinking period. I said to stop thinking so much about the gear.  And then I said START thinking more about the photo.


----------



## pgriz

People go through phases as they learn about a new field or hobby.  At first it seems it's about the gear, then technique, then (in the case of photography) post-processing.  At some point, there's increased awareness of light, which sets off its own round (gear, technique, application).  Consideration of composition, purpose, meaning and emotion develop over time as the tools get mastered, knowledge is acquired, and the realization of how much one doesn't know starts to sink in.  Having the horizons expanded is a good thing.  One discovers that there are many interconnected paths one can follow.  And each path has its own challenges.  So depending on the path taken, the walking aids which are appropriate change.  On some paths, mirror-less cameras make the most sense.  On others, it may be P&S, and for others it may be DSLR's.  Film is less of a path, and more of a whole different region.  

I've been doing photography for more than 45 years.  And almost every day I pick up the camera, or I look at an image, I find something new to learn.

As for gear obsession, it's kinda natural.  The rock climbers obsess about their ropes and carabiners.  The kayakers obsess about their boats, paddles and anciliarry equipment.  The bikers obsess about their gears and handle bars and seat stems.  Wood workers obsess about their tools and glues and varnishes.  But at some point, the gear and technique need to recede into the background and the reasons for doing something should come to the fore.  

Welcome to the journey.  It's a fascinating ride.


----------



## soufiej

Light Guru said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Stop thinking" is just the dumbest answer I can imagine.  To any question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say to stop thinking period. I said to stop thinking so much about the gear.  And then I said START thinking more about the photo.
Click to expand...



See?!  This is what I didn't want to get into.  Now you're all offended that I responded in a way you see as inappropriate.  Believe me, I didn't need your explanation of what you posted.  I can read and I do comprehend a few things some others on this forum seem not to grasp.

Let's go through a few facts, OK?  Ya'with me?  

*First and foremost, you are posting "STOP thinking so much about gear" in a section of the forum specifically about the gear. * I have to ask, if you're not here to assist *in a discussion of the gea*r, just why are you hanging out in this section of the forum?  Why do you think this section on gear was added to the forum if not for people to discuss gear?  Really?! there are sections of the overall forum where you can stay away from discussing gear.  *THIS* is not one of them.  

Understand?

Second, you don't have a clue.  Not only does this "stop thinking about gear" response seem to be a way for people to, what? up their post count? without really answering a question, it's shorthand for "I don't care what you want to know, it's not important to me."  Fine, if it's not important to you, don't bother to respond.  Get your post count up somewhere else.  You may have been capable enough to provide an opinion on my question but your preference is not to.  I don't know you and you don't know me so I can't say.  And neither can you.  Isn't that obvious?  

You don't know enough about me to give me advice about how I think.  *I happen to be considering a new camera purchase. * So, is your advice still that I "STOP thinking so much about gear"?   If so, that would be very, very dumb advice IMO.  But you still saw fit to give the advice that would, in most people's mind, be the most inappropriate thing to be thinking about at this point. Yes, thinking about how I'm going to use the camera must enter into the discussion.  But at this point, understanding the gear is the most important thing I need if I am to decide whether the gear is for me or not.  I just don't get it.  Might I suggest, YOU THINK about who you are talking to and why they might be asking a question BEFORE YOU simply post "STOP thinking so much about gear"?  

Finally, you also don't know me well enough to know how or how much I think about  a shot.  You couldn't, I've only been on this forum for a week.  No one on this forum knows me.  No one on this forum, other than those folks who have contributed to my thread about why I want a new camera, could possibly have any idea how I think about what I'm going to do with a new camera.  Therefore, I THINK you are completely off base and you really should just stop now.  In one week on this forum I've already been through this "stop thinking" BS several times and I've been run over by the one poster.  I've seen this advice used as shorthand for  "you're not important to me".  *And it seems to be so easy to post into any thread that, if that's really what you think, why not find a forum where only thinking about the image is the singular topic of discussion?*  You and those others who post the stop thinking BS are really wasting everyone's time IMO.  Unless, that is, you are saying such on a section of the forum which is all about thinking about the shot.  This is not one of those sections.


----------



## photoguy99

Soufiej this is the second time I've seen you get lengthily obnoxious in the face of good advice.

The reason you need to think about the images and not the gear is the the images you want will determine the gear. You have the cart before the horse.

There is no universal camera which will do everything you can imagine, which you will be able to discover if you just think hard enough.


----------



## snowbear

You post to a public area, asking for opinions.  Then you get upset when someone posts their opinion.


I think you think too much.


----------



## soufiej

photoguy99 said:


> Soufiej this is the second time I've seen you get lengthily obnoxious in the face of good advice.
> 
> The reason you need to think about the images and not the gear is the the images you want will determine the gear. You have the cart before the horse.
> 
> There is no universal camera which will do everything you can imagine, which you will be able to discover if you just think hard enough.





Yes, you're the member who ran me over the first time.  Please, read what I just posted above.

And, to repeat, I posted a question in a section of a public forum about the gear.  Geez!



Tell you all what, I think I have the answer I need here.  Let's call this quits. 


Thanks to everyone who actually contributed a useful response.


----------



## DaveEP

soufiej said:


> I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.
> 
> Anyone care to 'splain it to me?



Yes, it's really really simple.

Smaller P&S cameras are too small, often have so much stuff buried in menus and frankly the images they produce are snap shot at best (most of the time). You can't change lenses either, so you're stuck with what you got.

DSLRs are big and heavy and the lenses are too big to carry around casually.  I've carried two large pro bodies + lenses around my neck for too long and my back and shoulders hated me for it.   The quality of shots is (or can be) good/great, depending on who's doing the shooting.  It can also be pretty bad, worse in fact than a P&S if the shooter is not competent because DSLRs won't do all the consumer image massaging to make them look better, they expect you to do a lot of that in post yourself.  DSLR lenses are big and bulky and weigh far too much to carry around on walkabout. That's why so many DSLR owners go looking for the perfect 'walkabout' lens (which doesn't exist) hoping that magically something like a 28-300 in a small package is going to give great quality, which it isn't.

Mirrorless cameras come somewhere in between.  The images are (or can be) significantly better that P&S cameras and can compete very well with even high end DSLRs, except in situations where really high ISO is required.  The lens selection go from the absolutely tiny to the quite long focal length that is still extremely small compared to DSLRs.  I can carry a bag with two bodies and 5 lenses and still be smaller and lighter than carrying a DSLR with single lens.

I have all three of these types, P&S, Mirrorless and DSLR.

The P&S never gets used, I should ebay it.

The DSLR is sat on the shelf because it's too big and bulky to take everywhere.

The mirrorless camera is my go-to camera because it (and the lenses that go with it) is easy and light to carry around.  The lenses can be used wide open and still be sharp, there's very few DSLR lenses you say say that about.

The image quality is excellent. There is this idea that unless you have 22MP-36MP you can't make great images but I'm here to say the 16MP from a mirrorless camera prints very well to 16"x20" and bigger, in fact bigger than most people ever print.

So why does this sector exist?  I hope that's now a little clearer.  People have reasons to buy them, to shoot them and to make great images.


----------



## soufiej

DaveEP said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.
> 
> Anyone care to 'splain it to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's really really simple.
> 
> Smaller P&S cameras are too small, often have so much stuff buried in menus and frankly the images they produce are snap shot at best (most of the time). You can't change lenses either, so you're stuck with what you got.
> 
> DSLRs are big and heavy and the lenses are too big to carry around casually.  I've carried two large pro bodies + lenses around my neck for too long and my back and shoulders hated me for it.   The quality of shots is (or can be) good/great, depending on who's doing the shooting.  It can also be pretty bad, worse in fact than a P&S if the shooter is not competent because DSLRs won't do all the consumer image massaging to make them look better, they expect you to do a lot of that in post yourself.  DSLR lenses are big and bulky and weigh far too much to carry around on walkabout. That's why so many DSLR owners go looking for the perfect 'walkabout' lens (which doesn't exist) hoping that magically something like a 28-300 in a small package is going to give great quality, which it isn't.
> 
> Mirrorless cameras come somewhere in between.  The images are (or can be) significantly better that P&S cameras and can compete very well with even high end DSLRs, except in situations where really high ISO is required.  The lens selection go from the absolutely tiny to the quite long focal length that is still extremely small compared to DSLRs.  I can carry a bag with two bodies and 5 lenses and still be smaller and lighter than carrying a DSLR with single lens.
> 
> I have all three of these types, P&S, Mirrorless and DSLR.
> 
> The P&S never gets used, I should ebay it.
> 
> The DSLR is sat on the shelf because it's too big and bulky to take everywhere.
> 
> The mirrorless camera is my go-to camera because it (and the lenses that go with it) is easy and light to carry around.  The lenses can be used wide open and still be sharp, there's very few DSLR lenses you say say that about.
> 
> The image quality is excellent. There is this idea that unless you have 22MP-36MP you can't make great images but I'm here to say the 16MP from a mirrorless camera prints very well to 16"x20" and bigger, in fact bigger than most people ever print.
> 
> So why does this sector exist?  I hope that's now a little clearer.  People have reasons to buy them, to shoot them and to make great images.
Click to expand...




Excellent response!  I thank you very much.  I've always used Canon Rebels which tend to be fairly small and light while providing about as much camera as I typically need.  Then I would put my money into the lenses and so forth.  Certainly, the cost of a decent lens is significant and a top notch zoom for birding (I presently use a 75-300mm and a teleconverter at times) is somewhat out of my price range unless I get lucky and find one used.  

It's been eight years since I made my last purchase (a Rebel XT) and I'm in the market now.  I'll look into the size and weight differentials and see what i come up with as this is meant to be a daily carry around camera.  I drive a Fiat 500 so space is at a premium and there are no great locations to hide a camera bag full of equipment in the car's interior.    

My main sticking point as I've looked at the category has been the cost, which appears to be in about the same ballpark as a DSLR.  Your explanation does help though.  Thanks again.


----------



## DaveEP

soufiej said:


> My main sticking point as I've looked at the category has been the cost, which appears to be in about the same ballpark as a DSLR.  Your explanation does help though.  Thanks again.



It's late here, I'll try post some real world comparisons for you tomorrow.  You may just be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## The_Traveler

There is a semi-arcane reason that is important to some people.
Mirrorless cameras are considerable smaller and less obvious than dslrs and only sacrifice some of the potential iq.
Thus, for a street shooter, smaller less obvious cameras/lenses are less intimidating to subjects and are faster and lighter to use. (less rotational inertia)
Someone shooting a small mirror-less can be taken for a harmless tourist rather than a dreaded photographer.
If you are looking for low price, mirrorless may not a good direction because low level dslrs and entry level lenses are cheaper than Mirrorless.
My two main lenses for my Oly were both over 1k each.


----------



## cmorinweb

The reason is pretty clear: you get a decent sensor, in a smaller (much smaller) body, that you can carry everywhere without having to carry your backpack or that purse bag because that amazing DSLR is just too bulky.

I got a Nikon D70S which I like, with good accessories. It's old, but it works. Now I wanted something versatile that would allow me to take pictures of my daughter everywhere, and also record 1080p videos at the same time... All this, in a "pocketable" format. Try to do that with a DSLR... 

How many times I told myself "holy shout" that would make an awesome picture, but I left that big DSLR at home mainly because of its size. Now I got my Sony a6000 (which is an awesome camera by the way) with me everywhere. I get perfect pictures for me needs, and I can leverage my photography knowledge and let my creative instinct do great things. Gadgets like WiFi, NFC and others are great additions, but the main advantages of going mirrorless is the size and convenience.

As for anything, there will always be haters or people bashing about mirrorless, saying that it sucks and that DSLR are better blablabla. You got to try a good mirrorless camera to understand that it is a great technology. 

I was about to buy a more decent DSLR (Nikon D5200 or D7000), but a friend of mine which is a photographer told me about the mirrorless technology. I have spent few weeks reading and watching videos about that on the Internet, and was very impressed of what I was seeing. I took the leap, with absolutely no regrets.


----------



## The_Traveler

Yesterday was the first meeting of a workshop on creativity that has attracted a bunch of proficient amateurs from the area. We spent the first hour showing our own small portfolio and telling about our goals; typical get-to-know-each-other stuff.
Out of the nine people (one was a working commercial photographer), three had already switched from full frame conventional dslrs to Sony A7 and two more were interested enough to come over and ask questions primarily about lenses and adapters..

This group might be probably atypical because the interest in photography by each individual was considerable.


----------



## byegad

Taken with an Olympus OMD EM10 and 75-300mm lens in a wood with less than perfect light. This combination of lens and camera is the heaviest I own and I can carry it around all day on a wrist strap. The equivalent DSLR would be a Full Frame DSLR plus 150-600mm lens or a cropped sensor DSLR with a 100-400 lens and I defy you to carry either of those all day on a wrist strap.


----------



## soufiej

Without any brand bashing or promotion in mind, I was looking at a Canon SL1 yesterday.  It seems to have the small size and light weight along with useful features ( an optical viewfinder, for example) that I didn't see in mirrorless systems from other brands at similar prices.   In fact, just browsing the available cameras at a Best Buy where I needed a new wireless mouse, the SL1 looked to be selling for a good bit less money than their mirrorless offerings.  The SL1 looks to get good reviews while, at times, I feel as though the mirrorless cameras get good reviews as much because they are a new category (which appeals strictly because it's not an old category) as for their image quality.

Is the SL1 still fairly unique in DSLR's when it comes to size and weight combined with image quality and "old fashioned" (read: familiar) feature sets?  Have other manufacturer's been trying to compete with Canon in this category?  Or, are the Sony's Olymous, Fuji, etc, hanging their hat on mirrorless and hoping to steal a part of the market with the idea "we ain't your grandfather's DSLR"?  In a way, mirrorless seems to be the camera market's equivalent to DLP rear screen projection televisions and early class D audio amplifiers.  Both the DLP and chip based technologies offered good performance (with, however, some serious drawbacks) but ultimately couldn't knock off the alternatives; LED and second generation plasma televisions and "traditional" class AB amplifiers - even vacuum tube designs.


----------



## cmorinweb

In my opinion you should really go in a specializes camera store to get good advice and also be able to try both technologies. Places like Best Buy or Futureshop are good when you exactly know what you want, especially for cameras. 

A friend of mine who is a dentist just started in photography. He was mind blown when he tried my a6000 because of the image quality it produces with that form factor and price range.

Then the guy at Best buy was a Canon fanboy, saying that he must have the SL1 because of the lens variety and image quality. My friend needed a 100mm macro lents for taking pictures at work. The thing is that with mirrorless systems you can use any lens from Canon or Nikon. All you need is a little cheap adapter. 

I'm not saying that the Canon SL1 is not good, don't get me wrong. It is a great camera, but to me, mirrorless is more versatile and practical from a consumer perspective. Professionals are still a lot glued to DSLR though, which is totally correct. Pros like Gary Fong are more and more migrating to mirrorless, so that's a good sign that mirrorless technology is great and has a lot of potential. 

My two cents 
10 years of DSLR usage as a hobbyist, and now happily converted to mirrorless.


----------



## soufiej

cmorinweb said:


> In my opinion you should really go in a specializes camera store to get good advice and also be able to try both technologies. Places like Best Buy or Futureshop are good when you exactly know what you want, especially for cameras.
> 
> A friend of mine who is a dentist just started in photography. He was mind blown when he tried my a6000 because of the image quality it produces with that form factor and price range.
> 
> Then the guy at Best buy was a Canon fanboy, ...





I'm shopping so I've been to several stores.  The "fanboy" is not limited to a big box.  I've mentioned before that I worked in sales for 30 years and I've seen my share of lazy salespeople in all fields.  They are found in big box chains and in the single location shops.  And with a product as complex as a modern day camera, many salespeople know the systems they work with fairly well and not so much those they don't use daily.  So knowledge base and available inventory is a double edged sword in most cases.  So far, none of the independents I've contacted have a particular camera I'm considering in stock (and, to be fair, the model is being replaced so they have just sold out in some cases.)  I spent my sales career in small, local, independent shops so I'm very familiar with the trade offs of that type of retailer vs a big box.  I even interviewed for a job at one time at a small, family owned camera shop.  I'd been a client there for several years and the owner and I both agreed I probably couldn't - or wouldn't want to - live on the salary he was able to pay.  I could have made more money at one of the chains but wasn't willing to work for one.    

The Sony mirrorless was mentioned in this thread the other day so I thought I'd take a look.  While I was at BB buying the mouse, I wandered through the mostly decimated after Xmas and before inventory camera department.  That's were I spotted the SL1.


----------



## cmorinweb

This is a really good camera that's for sure. My friend is very happy with his purchase. 

It's a win win situation in my opinion!


----------



## The_Traveler

Not knowing where you live, I can say that Adorama and b&w photo in NYC will have everything, every model, all the info and terrific prices.


----------



## Bebulamar

I don't like the mirrorless and won't buy one but I think they do sell well and that is a very good reason for manufacturers to make them. They do have advantages over the DSLR so really can the OP tell me why not? Of the 47 models may be they should not make most of the first 38.


----------



## DaveEP

There's generally five main reasons people don't buy mirrorless cameras:

1) They shoot (or dream one day they may shoot) sports or BIF and the AF on DLSRs may be more suitable at this time. For everything else the AF is pretty much on par and often more flexible and accurate on mirroless than DSLR.

2) Ultra high ISO - which the vast majority of DSLR owners never really need, they are just too lazy to learn lighting like we used to use with film. Even then it's hard to knock Sony's prowess here, especially the A7s.

3) They mistakenly think there isn't the range of lenses available for mirrorless.  While it's true that Sony are still coming up to speed on the lens range (especially fast lenses) they are getting there. All the mirrorless cameras also have the advantage of being able to use their own native lenses plus all the DSLRs lenses (using adapters), so in fact even more than any DSLRs you care to mention can use.  Fuji have a reasonable range and between Olympus and Panasonic the Micro-Four-Thirds range is pretty well fleshed out from wide angle (7mm) to telephoto (600mm equivalent f5.6) and fast primes too (f0.95, f1.2, f1.4 etc etc). So, lenses should not be the primary reason, in fact they are smaller, lighter, cheaper and often sharper than their DSLR equivalents.

4) They prefer OVF to EVF. I have no problem with this as a personal preference.  I've used both extensively over the years.  I don't think the OVF in current DLSRs is as good as it was on film cameras back in the 80s, which were bigger and brighter, and while they all have some pretty nice info features, like shutter, aperture, ISO, focus conformation etc, the EVF gives you that little bit of extra information, like live histograms, horizon overlays, a true view of what the image will look like in both exposure and white balance before you take the shot. OVF can't do any of that, but that's OK because it's a personal preference.  Many people are against EVFs because they tried one they didn't like and assume they are all the same, or they are parroting things they've read somewhere on the internet.

5) This is an emotional one for some people, because a lot of amateurs think carrying around a big DSLR makes them look professional (what ever they perceive a professional to be), which is ironic as so many professionals are transitioning to mirrorless because they want smaller, lighter less obvious gear.

There are other reasons of course.  Battery life is often sighted as a cause, though it's never been a problem for me.  Flash systems could be another, though again the vast majority of people see flash as a black art and never quite get the hang of it. Brand loyalty is another and that's a tough one to over come for some people.  I'm quite sure that if Canon launched the 5D4 as a DSLR and had the same capabilities in a 5DM mirrorless but in a smaller lighter body (with EF adapter) many Canon fans would flock to it.  The same for Nikon and the D900.

When you think about how many photos are only ever seen on a screen, via the internet, phone or tablet, how large (or not) people actually print nowadays, do the vast majority of people actually need more than 16MP?  If that's the case won't 36MP (A7r) do?  For those that can 'manage' with 12MP-16MP the world of mirroless can be a very liberating place.


----------



## soufiej

Bebulamar said:


> I don't like the mirrorless and won't buy one but I think they do sell well and that is a very good reason for manufacturers to make them. They do have advantages over the DSLR so really can the OP tell me why not? Of the 47 models may be they should not make most of the first 38.





"Why not"?   I don't understand your question.  


Some manufacturers obviously don't make 47 models.  However, just as with most technology, what goes in the top o'the line unit this year will eventually work its way into the lower models as higher production numbers make reduced cost possible.  Should Ford only make a F-150 pick up?  It's their most popular model and the most popular vehicle sold in the US for the last umpteen years.  Just do a truck and forget the market for a small economical car like the Focus?  Personally, I don't care that much for the Focus but it sells well and it fits a niche.  

I mentioned this in another thread but when I sold high end audio we always had several lines which were "giant killers".  They dispensed with the BS features and sold on the basis of their musical performance.  I see nothing like that in photography.  Every line it seems is out to keep up with the mass market designers in the way of features offered.  WiFi in a camera?  I see absolutely no purpose for that feature.  That doesn't mean a manufacturer shouldn't include it.


----------



## Bebulamar

The question is that if the OP can tell me why manufacturers should not make the mirrorless cameras? 47 models is too many but they can cut down many models in the line up and still offer good number of mirrorless cameras.
You do have the Leica M60 with very few features but I guess most people won't pay for that. Less features cost more. As a more moderate attempt Nikon made the Df which has fewer features than the D610 and D750 but cost significantly more. The cost of such cameras is not only the manufacturing cost but since they can only sell fewer cameras they had to raise the price.


----------



## soufiej

I never suggested manufacturers shouldn't make these cameras.  

I said I didn't understand why they do.


----------



## DaveEP

soufiej said:


> I said I didn't understand why they do.



Do you now?


----------



## soufiej

I understand why Ford has a 29 vehicle line up to start from.  And why the basic F-150 has a five vehicle base even before you get to F-250's, F-350's, or King cabs and why you can choose seven different engines and five different transmission in just a F-150.

At times, don't you wish cameras were sold like that?


----------



## greybeard

soufiej said:


> I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.
> 
> Anyone care to 'splain it to me?


If you have to ask, you'll never understand.


----------



## soufiej

greybeard said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't understand the reason this category of camera exists other than providing a manufacturer with 47 models in their line up vs the more typical 38.
> 
> Anyone care to 'splain it to me?
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to ask, you'll never understand.
Click to expand...




I *REALLY* don't understand why people give BS responses like that.  Don't you folks have something better to do with your time?


----------



## pgriz

Maybe it's not a BS response.  In your post (#38) you've laid out the reasons why it works that way for trucks.  It does work exactly that way for any other consumer-oriented product, with manufacturers looking to maximize their market share and sales by putting together as many extensions to the basic lines as they can.  Cameras are no different.  The key issue for the manufacturer is whether the marginal cost of including a variation can be recovered in sales.  If that wasn't happening, they wouldn't be doing it.


----------



## soufiej

Well, no, a BS response is still a BS response and the one above is pure BS.  Someone with absolutely no knowledge of anything could have posted that response.  A six year old could have done as well and probably would have been thinking they were being "smart".  You don't have to read a thread to post that answer.  You get on the forum on a Saturday, see a thread and go right to the "respond" key.  IMO that is BS - and worthless.

Without trying to be simplistic, marketing of any consumer product is the result of several factors all aimed at one in particular.  I don't have a degree in marketing but my observations would indicate marketing is about sex.  Sex is the #1 driver of marketing and, if you equate sex with your product, you will win the marketing wars.  Sex isn't always marketed as sex but is often times marketed as power - big V8 engines which can literally rip tree trunks from the solid earth and drag the remains to your liar to supply fuel for warmth and for cooking your next conquest which you can also drag from the deepest segments of the forest to present to your frail female companion waiting at home for the hunter gatherer to sustain her - or that you can possess the icons of power which are mentally equated with sex.  Camera marketing to the male of the species (which is the primary market for expensive equipment of any kind - he who dies with the most toys, right?) is centered around, what?  *Long lenses* with *great powerful zooms and big apertures*, right?  That doesn't scream "SEX" to you?  Large, heavy, male oriented (read: impressive) equipment with interchangeable parts to suit every conceivable situation and position (Kama Sutra?).  Once again, SEX!  Sharpness which is the same as power to get the job done.  Sex.  "KING CAB" or "EXTENDED CAB".  Sex.  Even the color choices in an F-150 say sex; Caribou, Magnetic, Race Red, etc.  BIG screen televisions.  POWERFUL, high wattage amplifiers.  Until I see a camera marketed as "free range, hormone and antibiotic free", I'll believe cameras are no different than most of the world.

Technology is a trickle down affair.  It comes in first in the Top of the Line (sex) product as an enticement to have something other, lesser individuals cannot afford to possess.  Exclusivity is just another synonym for SEX.  Next, technology becomes affordable -  because we all want to be like the person who has exclusive rights to sex partners - by diversity in production.  It's much less expensive per unit to have technology manufactured in the hundreds of thousands than in the thousands.  Marketing projects the image of needing the technology and the availability of the technology whether it actually benefits the end user or not.  If you have any camera magazines from the 1990's, look at the technology which has been supplanted by a new feature since that time.  Lots of features come and go on cameras.  With the rise in popularity of smart phones has come the decline in sales for certain segments of the photographic market.   Right?  What would be a possible way to counter a smartphone's "always ready" (sex) availability?  A more available camera, no?  

How would, say, Ford respond to a dip in sales in a certain segment of their line?  They would introduce a new feature - a lift gate which opens when you stick your foot under a sensor and they would sell that feature.  (Just as Kelloggs would introduce a new breakfast cereal with chocolate marshmallows and sprinkles to gain a footing in another market segment - that of irresponsible parents who allow their five year old to select food items.) Does that feature make the vehicle perform any better?  No.  Performance costs money, features are cheap.  They might introduce a new segment of vehicles into their line - a "crossover" vehicle.  Crossover what?  No one is telling.

However, the basics of sales are feature, benefit and then operation.  What's the feature?  How does the feature benefit the buyer?  How does the buyer operate the feature?  Discuss a television or audio component with most salespeople.  They will sell the buttons and knobs and geegaws on the unit and the remote, then the connectivity and the features.  They will seldom mention quality of performance, mostly because mass market electronics fall rather short on performance when tasked to do their most basic functions.

Sell the sizzle (sex), not the steak.

That is where I was at when I began this thread.  I saw lots of sizzle and very little cow.


----------



## pgriz

soufiej said:


> I saw lots of sizzle and very little cow.


 In that context, your original post makes sense.  However, while "sex" is an important aspect to appeal to desire, it certainly isn't the only one.  Just as Freud seems to have overdone the phallic primacy in his psychoanalysis, saying that "sex" is at the root of all marketing is also overstating the case.  Humans (even the male ones) are rather complicated creatures, and there are plenty other attributes that can be (and are) exploited in trying to create attraction and desire - power, belonging, class aspiration, cultural norms, and so on.  I HAVE done studies in marketing both at the university and post-graduate level and I HAVE been a product marketer with several companies that were pitching their products to both consumers and businesses.  I also do sales and taught sales techniques, and the process of creating a "buying" situation in the mind of a potential customer is not just a matter of pushing the appropriate buttons.

It used to be that vendors, at computer or consumer or business shows thought that the way to get traffic is to hire some scantily-dressed buxom models, and they would be successful.  Reality was that while they had traffic, it usually was the wrong kind of traffic that did little to boost their business objectives.  What IS important in marketing and sales, is the understanding of the PERCEPTION of the potential client.  So much effort is spent on moulding that perception to something that is favourable to the vendor.  Why do people continue to buy brand-name products when the no-name brands have the identical ingredients, perform as well or better, and cost less?  Because the brand identification gives these customers the PERCEPTION that they are buying a better product (and better in this case doesn't just mean the product, but the whole "experience").  

For a while the number of megapixels was one value prominently displayed on the packaging for cameras.  Those who knew their stuff, KNEW that this was just one of the factors in the performance of the camera, but to those who didn't, it was an easily-understood number that in their perception, represented the "quality" of the camera.  Same for the Super-Zoom.   

Most people don't have the time and patience to analyse their own needs and research which products best satisfy those needs - that's why we get so many "What's the best lens for weddings?" questions.  People in general are trying to simplify their buying decision to a few key points that they think they understand (price being one of the more important ones), and then based on their perception (that word again!) on what they think the key attributes are, they will make their buying decision.  The challenge to marketers is to identify those key points (often through focus groups) and then highlight those in all the marketing, packaging, and sales efforts.  And since people can be usually segmented into discrete groups, there's usually a product just for that group.  Which is why we have twenty-plus version of Cherios.


----------



## Gary A.

I shoot mirrorless. I migrated from FF to MFT and now I shoot Fuji APS-C mirrorless. I tried out MFT just as a pocket type camera to camera around more easily than my 1Ds or 5D. Not only was it more convenient, (obviously, GF1 vs. 1D), but the image wasn't all that bad. When I moved up to the EM5, hell, the differences in IQ at 11x14 and smaller and under ISO 1600, were not significantly different. I started shooting MFT and my FF started gathering dust. Yeah, there was a problem with action and tracking, but pumping the AF button on single frame combined with lighting fast focus made capturing action photos faster than manual focus (SLR) but a bit slower than a dSLR. Essentially, more work for less keepers han a dSLR, but certainly adequate for many/most hobbyists.

One day I eyed the Fuji X-Pro1. I thought to myself ... "Man, that is one sexy camera." I bought it based purely on looks. After reviewing my first shots I said to myself "Wow, these image look like film ... beauty and brains." But the XP1 was a slow camera. Everything it did was slow compared to the EM5 or 1D.

After a year with the XP1 Fuji introduced the X-T1. That is one fast camera, it does everything fast, 1D fast. It still gives me film-esque images, much nicer to my eye than the digital-ish files from the EM5 and EM1. The XT1 doesn't track action, but if you keep the subject in the focus reticle, the camera will refocus quickly enough for sequential shooting (I have an eight frame sequential shots of a young running soccer player). For action, the AF isn't as good as a pro dSLR, but at less than half the weight and 1/6th the cost I think it does okay ... but there is always room for improvement.

I'm now parting out and giving my FF and MFT system to my kids and friends. Fuji is still lacking long and fast lenses, but the lenses they do have, are all exceptional and at a minimum 'L' lens sharp. The EVF is something one has to adjust to. There are many positives and many negatives ... negative for me is the refresh rate isn't seamless especially at higher FPS ... the positive is being able to see your exposure in real time.

The biggest negative for APS-C Fuji as compared to the MFT is lens size. Both systems have similar sized bodies, the Fuji and EM1 are not significantly different in size and weight. But the lenses for the MFT are significantly smaller the the lenses for the much larger APS-C sensored Fuji cameras. There is nothing to be done about that ... it is what it is.  I find the Fuji system, small size with APS-C sensor, wonderful filmesque IQ and great high ISO capabilities (I haven't any problems shooting 3200 and in a pinch 6400 is workable), a great compromise between FF and MFT.

Gary


----------



## soufiej

pgriz said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw lots of sizzle and very little cow.
> 
> 
> 
> In that context, your original post makes sense.  However, while "sex" is an important aspect to appeal to desire, it certainly isn't the only one.  Just as Freud seems to have overdone the phallic primacy in his psychoanalysis, saying that "sex" is at the root of all marketing is also overstating the case.  Humans (even the male ones) are rather complicated creatures, and there are plenty other attributes that can be (and are) exploited in trying to create attraction and desire - power, belonging, class aspiration, cultural norms, and so on.  I HAVE done studies in marketing both at the university and post-graduate level and I HAVE been a product marketer with several companies that were pitching their products to both consumers and businesses.  I also do sales and taught sales techniques, and the process of creating a "buying" situation in the mind of a potential customer is not just a matter of pushing the appropriate buttons.
> 
> It used to be that vendors, at computer or consumer or business shows thought that the way to get traffic is to hire some scantily-dressed buxom models, and they would be successful.  Reality was that while they had traffic, it usually was the wrong kind of traffic that did little to boost their business objectives.  What IS important in marketing and sales, is the understanding of the PERCEPTION of the potential client.  So much effort is spent on moulding that perception to something that is favourable to the vendor.  Why do people continue to buy brand-name products when the no-name brands have the identical ingredients, perform as well or better, and cost less?  Because the brand identification gives these customers the PERCEPTION that they are buying a better product (and better in this case doesn't just mean the product, but the whole "experience").
> 
> For a while the number of megapixels was one value prominently displayed on the packaging for cameras.  Those who knew their stuff, KNEW that this was just one of the factors in the performance of the camera, but to those who didn't, it was an easily-understood number that in their perception, represented the "quality" of the camera.  Same for the Super-Zoom.
> 
> Most people don't have the time and patience to analyse their own needs and research which products best satisfy those needs - that's why we get so many "What's the best lens for weddings?" questions.  People in general are trying to simplify their buying decision to a few key points that they think they understand (price being one of the more important ones), and then based on their perception (that word again!) on what they think the key attributes are, they will make their buying decision.  The challenge to marketers is to identify those key points (often through focus groups) and then highlight those in all the marketing, packaging, and sales efforts.  And since people can be usually segmented into discrete groups, there's usually a product just for that group.  Which is why we have twenty-plus version of Cherios.
Click to expand...





Nothing that I necessarily disagree with in that post ... other than Gary A's, "One day I eyed the Fuji X-Pro1. I thought to myself ... 'Man, that is one *sexy* camera.' I bought it based purely on looks."  



The only thing I really have to say in response to your post is marketing is not the same as sales.  Marketing is meant to get potential buyers into the showroom - or on the webpage - while sales is, as the car guys say, meant to get the bumper across the curbing.  Sales is a one on one experience while marketing is not.  Most technology is still marketed towards males.   Sales can be evenly split between the genders - though seldom is.  Though one could argue even the marketing pitch for "organic" and all that goes with it is about taking care of your family which is just another extension/variable/reminder of sex. 

IMO a good salesperson qualifies the client's stated desires.  Though what the client says they want and what actually motivates them to buy are not always the same.  I always attempted to establish the client's priorities and, if it became clear they had not done so prior to the sales meeting, then we would work on what was important, what was less important to not important at all and at what cost the client assumed these things were available.  If they were coming from pre-existing equipment, what were they expecting from the new equipment that their present gear wasn't delivering.  You're right that many buyers - not just "shoppers" - have little idea what they want from ny particular thing.  They have been motivated by marketing and, as I said, most technology is marketed to males.    Most sales encounters are not closed by way of selling sex but that doesn't mean the perturbations of sex, along with it's many derivatives which I listed above, is not what is running through the male mind as they make a buying decision.  Or, as Gary puts it, "Man, that is one *sexy* camera."


----------



## Gary A.

In my defense, lol, the body felt really good also, solid, not to big, not to small ... just one good looking camera with a great feeling body. (Took me back to my college days.)


----------



## Bebulamar

Any way I do have many cameras without mirror but I have no mirrorless camera.


----------



## greybeard

Like I said, if you have to ask such a question, no amount of explaining will ever get you to to say that you accept mirrorless as a legitimate category.  Does the interchangeable lens rangefinder Leica belong to the mirrorless category?


----------



## soufiej

greybeard said:


> Like I said, if you have to ask such a question, no amount of explaining will ever get you to to say that you accept mirrorless as a legitimate category.  Does the interchangeable lens rangefinder Leica belong to the mirrorless category?




I didn't "have" to ask.  So maybe there's hope for me yet. 

There have been several extremely helpful posts in this thread.  I'm not an expert in this category but I do now understand more fully why someone might buy from this category.  I'm still not convinced that a camera such as the Canon SL-1 isn't a better choice in cameras for less money.  But to each their own.

Unfortunately, I can't say your posts have been of any assistance since you haven't explained anything yet but have simply only told me I'll never understand what you have to say.   You're not related to lovemycam, are you?

Why don't you actually try to explain mirrorless cameras and we'll see how I do, eh?

Or not, other posters have been helpful.  Have it your way.  You don't really seem interested.   

I'm not brand specific so I really don't care what cameras fit or don't fit in the category.  If you want to debate that issue, you'll need another thread.  This isn't the one.


----------



## Gary A.

Soufiej- If you're in California, I'd be happy to let you try out my EM1, XP1, X100S and XT1.


----------



## soufiej

Thanks for the offer, Gary.  I'm in Dallas and probably gonna stay here for awhile.


----------



## greybeard

soufiej said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, if you have to ask such a question, no amount of explaining will ever get you to to say that you accept mirrorless as a legitimate category.  Does the interchangeable lens rangefinder Leica belong to the mirrorless category?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't "have" to ask.  So maybe there's hope for me yet.
> 
> There have been several extremely helpful posts in this thread.  I'm not an expert in this category but I do now understand more fully why someone might buy from this category.  I'm still not convinced that a camera such as the Canon SL-1 isn't a better choice in cameras for less money.  But to each their own.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't say your posts have been of any assistance since you haven't explained anything yet but have simply only told me I'll never understand what you have to say.   You're not related to lovemycam, are you?
> 
> Why don't you actually try to explain mirrorless cameras and we'll see how I do, eh?
> 
> Or not, other posters have been helpful.  Have it your way.  You don't really seem interested.
> 
> I'm not brand specific so I really don't care what cameras fit or don't fit in the category.  If you want to debate that issue, you'll need another thread.  This isn't the one.
Click to expand...


Sorry if my earlier posts were flippant but your question and other responses seemed rather Trollish.  I will do my best to explain mirrorless and why this forum has chosen to make it a category.   Actually the 1st interchangeable lens cameras (view cameras) could be classified as mirrorless but, they already have a classification.  The Leica rangefinder cameras are also mirrorless but they also have a classification (interchangeable rangefinder).  So along comes the Nikon 1, Sony NEX, etc. etc.  They are interchangeable lens, Auto focus, but the viewfinders are all electronic and not optical.  Most just have an electronic  display screen on the back like a smart phone  and some even have an electronic eyelevel viewfinder too.  What they don't have is a flipping mirror, pentaprism  and optical viewfinder.  (mirrorless)

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?  The 1st advantage that I have observed is that of size and weight as mirrorless cameras are about 1/2 the size and weight of a comparable dSLR producing similar results.  I have a Nikon D7000 dSLR and a Sony A6000 mirrorless and have used them enough to know what I am talking about.  The Nikon is a full size dSLR and with the battery pack attached it looks like a professional rig.  The a6000 is about the size of a bar of soap and with kit lens will easily fit into my coat pocket.  The optical vs electronic viewfinder is a mixed bag.  In doors and in darker environments the electronic mirrorless has the advantage in that it will brighten up automatically but, in brighter environments the optical is clearer.  When it comes to manually focusing the electronic viewfinder on the a6000 is wonderful.  It adds red or yellow or white edges to the part of the scene that is in best focus.  It will also magnify a small part of the scene so you can fine focus on it.  Can't do that with a dSLR.  Manually focusing on my D7000 is not much fun at all.  It does have an electronic rangefinder but it isn't near as nice as what is on the a6000.   This is not an issue if you never manually focus but, if you have any older lenses, they can probably be adapted to a mirrorless camera and used manually.  I have several old Minolta Rokkor lenses that have been sitting round for years.  I bought a $25 adapter for the a6000 and can now manually focus and use all my Minolta lenses I have a Nikon adapter too and I can get adapters for practically any 35mm mount.

So, I would say that the classification MIRRORLESS applies to a group of cameras that are interchangeable lens with electronic display/viewfinders only, no mirror.


----------



## The_Traveler

One of the great advantages of an _evf_ that is too often overlooked is that the results of using exposure compensation are seen in the viewfinder.
No more need to guess whether .3 or .7 or even 1 full stop makes the exposure better.


----------



## sashbar

Mirrorless cameras as a category exist because finally there are technologies that allow a manufacturer to dispose with a mirror-prism-optical viewfinder system, which is an expensive film era design that practically came to its limit and makes it very difficult to improve an interchangeable lense camera any further.

A modern DSLR is a last century film camera design with a sensor stuck into it instead of a film. This is one part of a digital camera that holds it back makes any further improvement vey difficult. 

You can not make the finder larger, because it affects the mirror and prism size and makes a camera way too large and cumbersome to operate.

You can not improve the shooting speed easily because of the flipping mirror that has its limits - to do so, one has to experiment with expensive materials that is financially restrictive.

The focus mirror leads to back of forth focus, a need for adjustments and problems with focusing on a wide open fast lense.

The large flange distance of a DSLR camera makes lenses larger and more expensive to produce especially wide ones that also suffer from some problems associated with the large flange distance.  A mirrorless due to the lack of a mirror makes this distance shorter.

That in turn activates economical factors.  A mirrorless lense of the same focal range, same optical quality and the same sensor size is cheaper to manufacture.

That means in the long term DSLR lenses manufacturers will lose to mirrorless simply because they need to invest more to compete.
Same goes for mirrorless bodies.  Mirror/prism/ovf are expensive. A mirrorless camera is cheaper to manufacture.

Several years ago mirror less was more of a bridge sort of camera. Now mirrorless are compete with DSLR on many fronts.

2-3 years ago EVF was horrible. Now the best EVFs often are preferred to OVF simply because they are more advanced and allow to include a lot of information, including a final image that will be captured. That means a photog can under or overexposed the scene and instead of guessing he can see exactly what the image will be. In the near future EVF will become even larger than the largest OVF and that will change a lot on the top end of camera market. Just look into a XT1 EVF and tiny, dark OVF of a beginners DSLR will seem horrible.  

Now focus. Focus speed of a mirrorless and their ability to track is still lagging behind. But it is getting closer, and the precision is often better than with DSLR because unlike a DSLR there s no back focus or front focus, it focuses directly on a sensor.

So all in all mirrorless are catching up very fast.

That is the main reason for their existence - a potentially better, more modern technology, cheaper cost of manufacture and ability to design more formats that cater for different clients with different needs but similarly high IQ demands.

Mirrorless is clearly THE  biggest thing that happened in the camera market in the last 10 years and it clearly will be much bigger in the future.


----------



## soufiej

greybeard said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, if you have to ask such a question, no amount of explaining will ever get you to to say that you accept mirrorless as a legitimate category.  Does the interchangeable lens rangefinder Leica belong to the mirrorless category?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't "have" to ask.  So maybe there's hope for me yet.
> 
> There have been several extremely helpful posts in this thread.  I'm not an expert in this category but I do now understand more fully why someone might buy from this category.  I'm still not convinced that a camera such as the Canon SL-1 isn't a better choice in cameras for less money.  But to each their own.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't say your posts have been of any assistance since you haven't explained anything yet but have simply only told me I'll never understand what you have to say.   You're not related to lovemycam, are you?
> 
> Why don't you actually try to explain mirrorless cameras and we'll see how I do, eh?
> 
> Or not, other posters have been helpful.  Have it your way.  You don't really seem interested.
> 
> I'm not brand specific so I really don't care what cameras fit or don't fit in the category.  If you want to debate that issue, you'll need another thread.  This isn't the one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry if my earlier posts were flippant but your question and other responses seemed rather Trollish.  I will do my best to explain mirrorless and why this forum has chosen to make it a category.   Actually the 1st interchangeable lens cameras (view cameras) could be classified as mirrorless but, they already have a classification.  The Leica rangefinder cameras are also mirrorless but they also have a classification (interchangeable rangefinder).  So along comes the Nikon 1, Sony NEX, etc. etc.  They are interchangeable lens, Auto focus, but the viewfinders are all electronic and not optical.  Most just have an electronic  display screen on the back like a smart phone  and some even have an electronic eyelevel viewfinder too.  What they don't have is a flipping mirror, pentaprism  and optical viewfinder.  (mirrorless)
> 
> So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?  The 1st advantage that I have observed is that of size and weight as mirrorless cameras are about 1/2 the size and weight of a comparable dSLR producing similar results.  I have a Nikon D7000 dSLR and a Sony A6000 mirrorless and have used them enough to know what I am talking about.  The Nikon is a full size dSLR and with the battery pack attached it looks like a professional rig.  The a6000 is about the size of a bar of soap and with kit lens will easily fit into my coat pocket.  The optical vs electronic viewfinder is a mixed bag.  In doors and in darker environments the electronic mirrorless has the advantage in that it will brighten up automatically but, in brighter environments the optical is clearer.  When it comes to manually focusing the electronic viewfinder on the a6000 is wonderful.  It adds red or yellow or white edges to the part of the scene that is in best focus.  It will also magnify a small part of the scene so you can fine focus on it.  Can't do that with a dSLR.  Manually focusing on my D7000 is not much fun at all.  It does have an electronic rangefinder but it isn't near as nice as what is on the a6000.   This is not an issue if you never manually focus but, if you have any older lenses, they can probably be adapted to a mirrorless camera and used manually.  I have several old Minolta Rokkor lenses that have been sitting round for years.  I bought a $25 adapter for the a6000 and can now manually focus and use all my Minolta lenses I have a Nikon adapter too and I can get adapters for practically any 35mm mount.
> 
> So, I would say that the classification MIRRORLESS applies to a group of cameras that are interchangeable lens with electronic display/viewfinders only, no mirror.
Click to expand...




Thanks for weighing in.  With more companies entering the camera market over the last few years, there also seems to be a lot more diversity in how the cameras are marketed.  With more diversity in the lines from the major manufacturers, distinctions between cameras also seem to be made less clear.  Since I learned photography on a Canon and I've owned Canon for a few decades now, I know the Canon line more than I know, say, Sony or Fuji.  Samsung is another story all together and, being familiar with Samsung as a (fairly low end build/high feature set) video line, I have a hard time taking them seriously in cameras.  They seem to be coming into the camera market hoping people with Samsung smartphones will buy a familiar name.   I'm guessing they have the financial resources to make other, more established lines somewhat unhappy with (even) a dent in their sales in a more diluted market.



So, to be clear, a camera without a mirror but with interchangeable lenses is a "mirrorless" camera.  But a camera with a mirror, an optical view finder and a fixed lens is still a "compact camera" (Canon G-1X and G16).  Both are sold as being "pocketable" - if you have large pockets.  As is the small bodied DSLR Canon SL-1 with an optical view finder.  Canon appears to favor optical view finders with back of camera, articulated LCD screens in their line.  As I've shopped I've found some rather obvious disparities in the resolution offered in LCD's and EVF's.  Not so much with optical view finders, they are pretty consistent when it comes to resolution.  Pro's and con's of optical vs electronic aside, is Canon simply sticking with proven technology with their upper end cameras when it comes to view finders? 

Possibly this isn't a question well known to the end users but, how many manufacturers of LCD's and EVF's are there?  In televisions there are (I believe the number is still) two manufacturers producing LCD screens.  Every television manufacturer is buying from this small subcontractor market if they want to build an LCD set.  Same for plasmas and LED's (though I think the supply for LED may be down to one builder).  Control chips and digital processors for televisions and mass market audio are coming from a similarly small number of suppliers.   In fact, most of what you are buying outside of the name itself is subcontracted out to other suppliers in these markets.  With some products one manufacturing plant turns out equipment marked for, say, Pioneer on Monday and Tuesday and for Sharp on Thursday and Friday.  Wednesday is open for bid.  Only the name plate changes.  Choose one master control chip and then everything that makes your product "different' is a matter of which switches are thrown on that one chip. 

How much does the consumer camera market depend on a similar design/manufacturing concept?  I assume the optics of most larger camera companies are still their own though I understand Panasonic and Leica have shared technology if not total cameras.  How much of the rest of the camera actually belongs to another company?


----------



## greybeard

sashbar said:


> Mirrorless cameras as a category exist because finally there are technologies that allow a manufacturer to dispose with a mirror-prism-optical viewfinder system, which is an expensive film era design that practically came to its limit and makes it very difficult to improve an interchangeable lense camera any further.
> 
> A modern DSLR is a last century film camera design with a sensor stuck into it instead of a film. This is one part of a digital camera that holds it back makes any further improvement vey difficult.
> 
> You can not make the finder larger, because it affects the mirror and prism size and makes a camera way too large and cumbersome to operate.
> 
> You can not improve the shooting speed easily because of the flipping mirror that has its limits - to do so, one has to experiment with expensive materials that is financially restrictive.
> 
> The focus mirror leads to back of forth focus, a need for adjustments and problems with focusing on a wide open fast lense.
> 
> The large flange distance of a DSLR camera makes lenses larger and more expensive to produce especially wide ones that also suffer from some problems associated with the large flange distance.  A mirrorless due to the lack of a mirror makes this distance shorter.
> 
> That in turn activates economical factors.  A mirrorless lense of the same focal range, same optical quality and the same sensor size is cheaper to manufacture.
> 
> That means in the long term DSLR lenses manufacturers will lose to mirrorless simply because they need to invest more to compete.
> Same goes for mirrorless bodies.  Mirror/prism/ovf are expensive. A mirrorless camera is cheaper to manufacture.
> 
> Several years ago mirror less was more of a bridge sort of camera. Now mirrorless are compete with DSLR on many fronts.
> 
> 2-3 years ago EVF was horrible. Now the best EVFs often are preferred to OVF simply because they are more advanced and allow to include a lot of information, including a final image that will be captured. That means a photog can under or overexposed the scene and instead of guessing he can see exactly what the image will be. In the near future EVF will become even larger than the largest OVF and that will change a lot on the top end of camera market. Just look into a XT1 EVF and tiny, dark OVF of a beginners DSLR will seem horrible.
> 
> Now focus. Focus speed of a mirrorless and their ability to track is still lagging behind. But it is getting closer, and the precision is often better than with DSLR because unlike a DSLR there s no back focus or front focus, it focuses directly on a sensor.
> 
> So all in all mirrorless are catching up very fast.
> 
> That is the main reason for their existence - a potentially better, more modern technology, cheaper cost of manufacture and ability to design more formats that cater for different clients with different needs but similarly high IQ demands.
> 
> Mirrorless is clearly THE  biggest thing that happened in the camera market in the last 10 years and it clearly will be much bigger in the future.


Will Pentax make a mirror-less version of their 645Z?  I know that Phase One is jumping in,  seems like a very natural transition to me.


----------



## greybeard

soufiej said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, if you have to ask such a question, no amount of explaining will ever get you to to say that you accept mirrorless as a legitimate category.  Does the interchangeable lens rangefinder Leica belong to the mirrorless category?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't "have" to ask.  So maybe there's hope for me yet.
> 
> There have been several extremely helpful posts in this thread.  I'm not an expert in this category but I do now understand more fully why someone might buy from this category.  I'm still not convinced that a camera such as the Canon SL-1 isn't a better choice in cameras for less money.  But to each their own.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't say your posts have been of any assistance since you haven't explained anything yet but have simply only told me I'll never understand what you have to say.   You're not related to lovemycam, are you?
> 
> Why don't you actually try to explain mirrorless cameras and we'll see how I do, eh?
> 
> Or not, other posters have been helpful.  Have it your way.  You don't really seem interested.
> 
> I'm not brand specific so I really don't care what cameras fit or don't fit in the category.  If you want to debate that issue, you'll need another thread.  This isn't the one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry if my earlier posts were flippant but your question and other responses seemed rather Trollish.  I will do my best to explain mirrorless and why this forum has chosen to make it a category.   Actually the 1st interchangeable lens cameras (view cameras) could be classified as mirrorless but, they already have a classification.  The Leica rangefinder cameras are also mirrorless but they also have a classification (interchangeable rangefinder).  So along comes the Nikon 1, Sony NEX, etc. etc.  They are interchangeable lens, Auto focus, but the viewfinders are all electronic and not optical.  Most just have an electronic  display screen on the back like a smart phone  and some even have an electronic eyelevel viewfinder too.  What they don't have is a flipping mirror, pentaprism  and optical viewfinder.  (mirrorless)
> 
> So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?  The 1st advantage that I have observed is that of size and weight as mirrorless cameras are about 1/2 the size and weight of a comparable dSLR producing similar results.  I have a Nikon D7000 dSLR and a Sony A6000 mirrorless and have used them enough to know what I am talking about.  The Nikon is a full size dSLR and with the battery pack attached it looks like a professional rig.  The a6000 is about the size of a bar of soap and with kit lens will easily fit into my coat pocket.  The optical vs electronic viewfinder is a mixed bag.  In doors and in darker environments the electronic mirrorless has the advantage in that it will brighten up automatically but, in brighter environments the optical is clearer.  When it comes to manually focusing the electronic viewfinder on the a6000 is wonderful.  It adds red or yellow or white edges to the part of the scene that is in best focus.  It will also magnify a small part of the scene so you can fine focus on it.  Can't do that with a dSLR.  Manually focusing on my D7000 is not much fun at all.  It does have an electronic rangefinder but it isn't near as nice as what is on the a6000.   This is not an issue if you never manually focus but, if you have any older lenses, they can probably be adapted to a mirrorless camera and used manually.  I have several old Minolta Rokkor lenses that have been sitting round for years.  I bought a $25 adapter for the a6000 and can now manually focus and use all my Minolta lenses I have a Nikon adapter too and I can get adapters for practically any 35mm mount.
> 
> So, I would say that the classification MIRRORLESS applies to a group of cameras that are interchangeable lens with electronic display/viewfinders only, no mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for weighing in.  With more companies entering the camera market over the last few years, there also seems to be a lot more diversity in how the cameras are marketed.  With more diversity in the lines from the major manufacturers, distinctions between cameras also seem to be made less clear.  Since I learned photography on a Canon and I've owned Canon for a few decades now, I know the Canon line more than I know, say, Sony or Fuji.  Samsung is another story all together and, being familiar with Samsung as a (fairly low end build/high feature set) video line, I have a hard time taking them seriously in cameras.  They seem to be coming into the camera market hoping people with Samsung smartphones will buy a familiar name.   I'm guessing they have the financial resources to make other, more established lines somewhat unhappy with (even) a dent in their sales in a more diluted market.
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, a camera without a mirror but with interchangeable lenses is a "mirrorless" camera.  But a camera with a mirror, an optical view finder and a fixed lens is still a "compact camera" (Canon G-1X and G16).  Both are sold as being "pocketable" - if you have large pockets.  As is the small bodied DSLR Canon SL-1 with an optical view finder.  Canon appears to favor optical view finders with back of camera, articulated LCD screens in their line.  As I've shopped I've found some rather obvious disparities in the resolution offered in LCD's and EVF's.  Not so much with optical view finders, they are pretty consistent when it comes to resolution.  Pro's and con's of optical vs electronic aside, is Canon simply sticking with proven technology with their upper end cameras when it comes to view finders?
> 
> Possibly this isn't a question well known to the end users but, how many manufacturers of LCD's and EVF's are there?  In televisions there are (I believe the number is still) two manufacturers producing LCD screens.  Every television manufacturer is buying from this small subcontractor market if they want to build an LCD set.  Same for plasmas and LED's (though I think the supply for LED may be down to one builder).  Control chips and digital processors for televisions and mass market audio are coming from a similarly small number of suppliers.   In fact, most of what you are buying outside of the name itself is subcontracted out to other suppliers in these markets.  With some products one manufacturing plant turns out equipment marked for, say, Pioneer on Monday and Tuesday and for Sharp on Thursday and Friday.  Wednesday is open for bid.  Only the name plate changes.  Choose one master control chip and then everything that makes your product "different' is a matter of which switches are thrown on that one chip.
> 
> How much does the consumer camera market depend on a similar design/manufacturing concept?  I assume the optics of most larger camera companies are still their own.  How much of the rest of the camera actually belongs to another company?
Click to expand...

I do know that Sony and Toshiba are making a lot of the sensors used by many camera manufactures.  They are probably making a lot of the EVF parts too.


----------



## greybeard

Gary A. said:


> In my defense, lol, the body felt really good also, solid, not to big, not to small ... just one good looking camera with a great feeling body. (Took me back to my college days.)


That is a great looking camera


----------



## Bebulamar

Leica is making their M cameras mirrorless now. The M8, M9 were not mirrorless because although they didn't have mirror they didn't offer any mean to view thru the lens without mirror ( they did offer a thru the lens viewing by adding their clunking reflex adapter). Their new M-240 now has live view and optional EVF so it's a mirrorless.


----------



## Gary A.

The Fuji's X-Pro1 and X100 series, (X100, X100S and X100T), offers the option of an optical rangefinder-like viewfinder or an EVF ... the flick of a level will switch you from optical viewfinder to EVF.


----------



## sashbar

soufiej said:


> So, to be clear, a camera without a mirror but with interchangeable lenses is a "mirrorless" camera.  But a camera with a mirror, an optical view finder and a fixed lens is still a "compact camera" (Canon G-1X and G16).  Both are sold as being "pocketable" - if you have large pockets.  As is the small bodied DSLR Canon SL-1 with an optical view finder.  Canon appears to favor optical view finders with back of camera, articulated LCD screens in their line.  As I've shopped I've found some rather obvious disparities in the resolution offered in LCD's and EVF's.  Not so much with optical view finders, they are pretty consistent when it comes to resolution.  Pro's and con's of optical vs electronic aside, is Canon simply sticking with proven technology with their upper end cameras when it comes to view finders?



These is no mirror in G-1X and similar cameras. There is just a tiny optical viewfinder with off-set parallax and narrow field of view, like any bridge or some P&S cameras. You do not look through the lense, unlike DSLR or a mirrorless camera.

The problem with an OVF is that you can not put a large DSLR type OVF into a small, never mind pocketable, body.  You need space for the flipping mirror and the prism or pentamirror.  That is why OVF  in relatively compact DSLRs like SL1 are consistently tiny. Even then you can not make it flat, it will be chunky to accommodate the prism and mirror.

All cameras with proper large  through-lense OVF are large size, big, heavy DSLRs. And the large OVF immediately reflects in the cost. But even with a large expensive and ambitious full frame D750 they were unable to squeeze in the OVF they use in their professional bodies. Compare it to a FUJI XT1 mirror-less which is less than half the size and packs an EVF that is larger than about any pro OVF on the market.

This all very simple - with OVF the space is the limit.  You can not make it any better. With mirrorless EVF it is the matter of EVF screen resolution and brute processing force which is doubling and doubling every second year.  So it is only a matter of time, and manufacturers know it.


----------

