BTHPhoto wrote:
Don't know what all the fuss is about.  I've been using mirrorless cameras since 1975, and the one I started with had been used by my uncle since 1945.

Rangefinder

Jay Farrell wrote:

Rangefinder

Well, I was thinking of view cameras, but rangefinders qualify too. 

Mirrorless Cameras? Future?

I think mirrorless camera have more potentiality respect DSLR camera and when the actual limit will be overcome this thing will become more apparent.
But that don't means the end of the DSLR system only its substantial reduction.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
I find it hard to believe that anyone really cares about the mirror in a DSLR.

Meaning, if people had their 5D or D800 and it was identical in every way other than the mirror, they wouldn't care. I bet most would eventually prefer the mirrorless version.

I think what mirrorless means to most people is a new body that won't work with the rest of what they already own.

Less investment in the body, fantastic glass for the money, and significantly smaller / lighter weight are the draws. At the end of a long wedding my body is less fatigued for sure.

Phantasmal Images wrote:
I think eventually mirrorless cameras will replace DSLR's, but not until we start seeing Canon and Nikon making full frame mirrorless bodies.

I kindof doubt they will ever replace DSLR's, it's pretty plain that Canon and Nikon aren't taking Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, etc. seriously.

ontherocks wrote:
i think mirrorless is latin for SLOW

my fuji x-pro1 can take great pictures, especially outside, but it's no replacement for my cannons: 5D MK II or 6D.

and if the big deal about mirror less is smaller well then eventually cellphones may trump mirror less.

i do like the fuji for product photography.

It's wonderful for weddings too!

Jay Farrell wrote:

Less investment in the body, fantastic glass for the money, and significantly smaller / lighter weight are the draws. At the end of a long wedding my body is less fatigued for sure.

My mirrorless cost as much as a 5D3.

Jay Farrell wrote:

I kindof doubt they will ever replace DSLR's, it's pretty plain that Canon and Nikon aren't taking Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, etc. seriously.

Of course they will.

EVFs and excellent high ISO performance have completely changed the exposure process.

Shutter speed and aperture don't need to be considered outside of esthetics any more. ISO can be labeled as brightness and then people can adjust the brightness by eye through the EVF.

Most people don't think this way yet, but eventually everyone will and DSLRs will be over. There's no benefit to having a mirror, though there are benefits to the rest of  what you get with a DSLR.

ontherocks wrote:
i think mirrorless is latin for SLOW

my fuji x-pro1 can take great pictures, especially outside, but it's no replacement for my cannons: 5D MK II or 6D.

and if the big deal about mirror less is smaller well then eventually cellphones may trump mirror less.

i do like the fuji for product photography.

That may be accurate for that model, but the Sonys are plenty fast.

Mortonovich II wrote:
What's the flash sync on those various mirrorless cameras?

I found this article enlightening: http://thisweekinphoto.com/sync-speed-m … s-cameras/

Mortonovich II wrote:
What's the flash sync on those various mirrorless cameras?

typically 1/180 to 1/250

Mortonovich II wrote:
What's the flash sync on those various mirrorless cameras?

That's why the x100 series is popular, leaf shutter. Many pros are turned off my no HSS even with capable flashes or ETTL, but I'm making it work just fine personally.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

Of course they will.

EVFs and excellent high ISO performance have completely changed the exposure process.

Shutter speed and aperture don't need to be considered outside of esthetics any more. ISO can be labeled as brightness and then people can adjust the brightness by eye through the EVF.

Most people don't think this way yet, but eventually everyone will and DSLRs will be over. There's no benefit to having a mirror, though there are benefits to the rest of  what you get with a DSLR.

I think it will be a Mac PC thing for quite a while at least, it won't suit everyone even with improvements. We'll see if it happens in our lifetime.

Phantasmal Images wrote:
I think eventually mirrorless cameras will replace DSLR's, but not until we start seeing Canon and Nikon making full frame mirrorless bodies.

I agree with this completely.

Sony is killing it for the time being, and their offerings are VERY tempting. However, I feel that people heavily invested in team Canon or Nikon gear/glass might be waiting on the sidelines until Canon/Nikon step up and go FF mirrorless. I know I am.

Mad Hatter Imagery wrote:
I came across an article and video which I didn't fully understand about new mirrorless cameras that also don't use lens. Is this type of thing the future? How does it work?

In reply to your question, mirrorless is the type of camera like the old Leica cameras of the 35mm days. SLR used a prism mirror so you can shoot what you see. Without the mirror, the camera body is thinner and it sync at a higher speed for flash.
There are advantages using mirrorless over a SLR, but there are also disadvantages, or rather, something you have to rethink when you switch back and forth with a SLR and a mirrorless.

I shoot with both DSLR and mirrorless, and it has come to be 2nd nature after awhile, as in the days when I was shooting with a view camera, medium format rolleiflex, and SLRs as rangefingers.

There is a lot to gain going mirrorless, and the only way to find out if you like it or not, is to try one. Go rent one and shoot and find out if it works for you.
As I said, I shoot with both mirrorless and DSLR these days ... and the only difference I feel is the weight of the DSLR.

Remember too, that your SLR lenses do not work on mirrorless. The lenses of the mirrorless is much smaller and the body is also very thin, since it does not have to have the pentaprism in the body.
I hope that helps.

MATT TAN PHOTOGRAPHY  wrote:
Remember too, that your SLR lenses do not work on mirrorless. The lenses of the mirrorless is much smaller and the body is also very thin, since it does not have to have the pentaprism in the body.

Well.... with an adapter, all my old AI nikkor lenses work fine with my micro4/3 mirrorless camera.  But this is nothing new.

MATT TAN PHOTOGRAPHY  wrote:
To those who keep saying they wait for a mirrorless by Nik or Can because of their investment in glass in their present setup...
that is pretty senseless because SLR and DSLR lenses do not mount on mirrorless.

To those who say only Nik and Can know about cameras,
you forgot that Leica was the only one doing rangefinders and were the top , if not the only cameras many pros used in the heydays of 35mm. In mirrorless, Linux is Leica. And Nikon and Canon never made a rangefinder worthy to replace any Leica cameras till today.

As they say, the world does not revolve around Nikon and Canon. I am not anti-Nikon, as my first 35mm was a Nikon f, and a Nikonos, but I also used 2 Rolleiflexes ( SL1000 and SLX ), and in the 35mm format, I also used OM2, K1000,
and have been a big user of Pentax and Oly as well.

To say you only you one brand of camera, is like a painter saying he only uses one brand of brushes.
As Ansel Adams used to profess in his seminars, "there are no bad cameras ; only bad photographers". The great Karsh also said that when I got to meet with him in his Ottawa Chateau Laurier office , after I graduated from NYI and moved to the capital to begin my freelance as a photographer there. 
Mr. Karsh told me when I asked if Olympus OM2 is good enough for pro work, said the same thing as Mr. Adams.

OP...Your Beginning Statement is a What? Please Keep up. Metabones, Novoflex, and on and on. You can Place Canon L or Nikon G onto Sony's A7 Series Easily.  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct … JEYE-Sse8g

Managing Light wrote:
Mirrorless is causing Canon some financial problems: second quarter profits are down 21%, partly due to customers going for other companies' mirrorless products rather than Canon DSLRs.

http://petapixel.com/2015/10/27/canon-p … slr-sales/

That doesn't surprise me.

The mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras really shines when shooting non-action shots in natural light, or studio if it has an EVF.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
That may be accurate for that model, but the Sonys are plenty fast.

Jay Farrell wrote:
Canon and Nikon aren't taking Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, etc. seriously.

Because of their conflict of interest with their DSLR line-up they understimate this segment and I think that this situation will continue until happen a substantial reduction in the DSLR market held by these two producers.
And I think this could happen when the mirrorless camera gain AF performance comparable with the top end DSLR camera and the producers decide to produce more ergonomic bodies (that on the case means bigger so more confortable to hanlde which would give the possibility to accommodate batteries with better autonomy).

Zack Zoll wrote:
The biggest pro and con to mirrorless is the size. I usually use something around a 50mm prime, so the size is a huge plus. But if you regularly use a 14-24 or a 70-200, the size is a disadvantage.

I think it's pretty safe to say that lenses will shrink a bit more as more R&D is dumped into mirrorless systems. But I doubt they will shrink much. And even though a given lens can be a little smaller on a mirrorless because it doesn't project as far, it's still covering the same size sensor, so it can't be too much smaller. Look at Sony's 70-200 f/4 versus Nikon's or Canon's; it's smaller, but still in the same ballpark.

If you're using big lenses, there will always be a benefit to DSLRs, even if it's just the weight and grip size. But if not, then it's hard to spot a purely objective difference. At least in the price range where most cameras are sold.

I wouldn't be surprised if ten years from now, Nikon and Canon had a lineup like Sony did recently: a cheap DSLR for students, and a pro model. Really the only market at that time will be people using giant lenses, and people that think they will some day.

Most of the mirrorless flaws are processing related. For instance, current models don't actually have a shutter delay. We perceive one, but it's not there. What happens is that the screen doesn't update as fast as a real image reflected through mirrors, and in low light the 'shutter speed' on that video the EVF shows you is slower. So when you're looking through the EVF, especially in low light, what you're seeing is an image that is just a split-second ago. So when you push that shutter button, even though it triggers instantly, you perceive it as triggering late. And based on what you see on-screen, it IS late. But if you take the camera away from your face, and just hit the shutter button, you'll find that the delay on most current mirrorless models is no better or worse than DSLRs in that price range.

What that means is that the technology itself is capable of firing instantly. With better processors, and the increased speed and reduced ISO noise that comes from them, we'll see less and less of a delay through the viewfinder.

I had this problem with the first mirrorless Olympus made. If I set it to manual focus and clicked away, it was as snappy as anything. But if I tried to use the screen or the external EVF, it seemed like I always missed the shot. Using the 17mm and the optical finder that went with it, I didn't miss nearly as many shots.

Leica has a new mirrorless camera that's the size of a dlsr. I don't know what Sony's plans are as far as camera size. But imo, it would make much more since to replace the A99 with a mirrorless system. My A99 is a evf with a translucent mirror. But with the faster mirrorless cameras that are now out. I no longer see the point of the translucent systems.