Mirrorless cameras have been taking over the photography scene for quite a few years now, and they're widely heralded as the next step in photographic innovation. But there are quite a few reasons why they're not the game-changer we were expecting.
I'm all for adopting new technology to help make my life as a photographer easier, faster, or to improve the quality of my work. However, I find it difficult to accept the mirrorless movement as this huge step forward in camera evolution. There are several things that need to be addressed in order for me to acknowledge its prerequisite of being "essential for my kit bag." So I've decided to compile a few of my main gripes with them and explain a little about why I'm not so sure it's the wonder pill for photographers that it's meant to be.
Viewfinder Woes
Call me a traditionalist, but I love an optical viewfinder. Looking through a portal into the physical world free of distortion and other optically hindering stumbling blocks is something that I take great pleasure in, so much so that when comparing my Nikon F100 to the Nikon D750 I had for years, I was rather disappointed. The F100 had a larger field of view, and it was considerably bigger (at least to my eyes). It felt like I had a real connection with the world in front of me. However, my point is that I could live with it.
The biggest display on the device is a rear LCD screen, but pop your eye into a mirrorless viewfinder and you'll find... another mini-screen!
Take that a step further with the latest mirrorless cameras, and I struggle to remain tolerant. Not only do I now have to peer into a small box with another screen in it, but now my access to the world is limited by frame rate, color gamut, brightness, and resolution. If I open both eyes (as you should if you're a pro, check out my other post on that), then my view of the world feels imbalanced. The only consolation is that because I'm peering into an electronic viewfinder, I can now ramp up the exposure brightness when shooting in low light, which helps me see (and focus) in the dark.
It Means New Lens Collections
Are you ready to sell all your old kit and lenses and start afresh? Because that's what you'll want to do to take advantage of what mirrorless brings. Let me clarify. There are many of you out there right now about to head to the comments and tell me that there are lens adapters; yes, I know! But it rather negates the advantage of mirrorless systems. However, mirrorless systems outperform their DSLR brothers and sisters due to improved flange distance and high-quality engineering in the lenses.
Mirrorless cameras and their lenses are comparatively smaller and lighter than their DSLR counterparts, and often have higher quality optical characteristics
So, yes, you can use a lens adapter with your older DSLR lenses, and that should work perfectly fine, but you're keeping the same old larger lenses and now introducing an adapter, which almost negates the point of having a smaller body in the first place. Plus, the newer mirrorless lenses have special features such as customizable rings on the lens to adjust specific camera settings.
Overheating Issues
Maybe there's a reason that warning labels exist on some of the mirrorless cameras?
Unfortunately, because of the smaller form factor that comes with the mirrorless cameras, they are more prone to overheating, that is, getting so hot during operation that they need to be turned off and/or cooled down before using again. True, this only affects certain models and under specific operations (such as 8K video recording), but it's still enough to put me off. Did my DSLR ever overheat? No. Did my film SLR ever overheat? No. For me, I'd like to feel the flexibility of being able to shoot as much as I want, wherever I want, without limitation.
As Limited as a DSLR
I outlined in a recent post that although mirrorless cameras are the next step in the "proper camera" lineage, we will have to wait for the improved integration of these cameras into our everyday lives. For example, their connectivity to our existing devices is sub-par for now. Why do I need to download an app, get it to sync with my camera, have it lose connection a few times (in my experience), and then have to edit on my phone before uploading to my favorite social media? I think it would be far better to do some editing on the camera itself that integrates with my Lightroom catalog and then automatically share it via the camera to social media, rather than having to introduce another step and get it to my phone, tablet, or laptop.
I'd like to see a vast improvement in connectivity and sharing with the ability to edit using Lightroom-style features and share with my
In this respect, my mirrorless camera is about as useful as the DSLR, which can do pretty much the same thing. I appreciate that camera manufacturers are trying to introduce new apps and integration software, but I think the communication between camera manufacturers and software manufacturers needs to be stronger and that connection between platforms much more smoothly developed to make it a paradigm shift for the user.
When Will I Upgrade All My Kit?
Mirrorless cameras are great, useful, and serve to be the next step in camera evolution in terms of size and weight, and there are plenty of cameras out there that have exciting new features that DSLR cameras will probably never have. The almost-standard five stops of in-body image stabilization is awesome for doing all kinds of things, such as shooting in low-light conditions and shooting handheld video with smooth, dolly-like tracking. But are they the "holy grail" that many people appear to be purporting? Should you swap all your gear and buy into this system just because it's the latest iteration of the technological generation? Well, I personally don't think so. It'll take a little bit more to convince me that it's the game-changing step that others have us believe it is.
Way ahead of you - I used Sony a6xxx for years. I gave up on it when it became clear they'd dead-ended their APS-C line. I then went back to Nikon and now have a Z6 and a Z50. The Z50 is everything mirrorless should be - but it's looking like Nikon has also lost interest in APS-C.
" If I open both eyes (as you should if you're a pro"
Utter nonsense. Stopped reading at that point because I've known these types of people. Using both eyes is a luxury if you happen to have a near 1x magnification viewfinder and don't wear glasses. I don't know a single professional photographer who shoots with both eyes open.
Not to mention the arrogance of him just assuming pro photographers are at a higher knowledge or skill level. Pro in photography simply does not have the same broad connotation as being a pro in sports. There are A LOT of pros whose work is sub-par. Monetization choice <> skill.
Lol, I came here knowing someone in the comments would have already said what I was thinking. Statements like "you should be shooting with both eyes open if you're a pro" are so ridiculous and completely unfounded.
Kind of implying someone with an eye missing cant be a pro photographer too, which is also silly.
I myself can only focus with one eye at a time anyways, so it really wouldn't matter if I had both eyes open. I focus with one, and the other goes lazy. But I'm still a professional photographer, and it certainly has zero effect on me being a professional photographer.
Not only is it impossible for me to do, but there's nothing I would gain from it. And some of the photography I do (wildlife, for example) it would be nothing more than a hindrance.
What is the reason/benefits of shooting with both eyes open? Short of trying to predict when someone will walk into the frame or something like that.. Perhaps for certain street photography shots it could be sometimes useful. I.e, Plan your background, and wait for people or a bicycle to enter the frame. Any other reasons?
That's the only reason, really. It dates back to the days of rangefinders, like the M3 which some people (not me, because of glasses) can shoot with both eyes because it's very high magnification. I don't know anyone that shoots SLRs or digital with both eyes open, even if they could.
I wear rigid gas permeable contact lenses. If I keep an eye closed all of the time it dries out and mucus builds up on the contact. So there are other reasons for some people and some shooting situations.
It is ridiculous to insist that all "pros" MUST do it, though. Every shooter should do whatever works for them in whatever specific shooting situations they are working.
It's equally ridiculous to insist that no one ever has a legitimate reason for doing it other than why you think they should.
It comes in handy when shooting American football on the sidelines. Not only to allow you to see the play developing around what is in the VF, but also to avoid getting blindsided by a linebacker or an official running down a play.
I think you’re all missing the point here, it’s in the interest of camera companies to sell a whole new range of camera gear and yes mirror less might be good but with my £7000 worth of Canon gear that takes amazing photographs what incentive do I have for losing a fortune just to keep Canon happy. The problem they have is that they produced such amazing gear pre mirrorless they won’t convince me it’s economical to change to something just for the sake of it, but go on just spend all that cash but you won’t get better pictures!
You'd be able to sell your old junk for £4K, probably, depending on what it is, also don't pretend £7K is a massive investment for all your photography gear, if you were actually serious about photography and a professional, you'd be earning enough to change gear, at a small loss due to items still remaining over half their value, then again, you probably think you need an upgrade just to stay good at taking pictures.
Buy a second hand Fuji or Sony and go for it. Have some fun with it for your personal shooting. I never understood all the drama about "changing systems." I shoot with both Nikon DSLS and Fujifilm mirrorless.
This is the same writer that said the 1DX III is a failure because it is only 20 Megapixels.
I am blocking all Fstoppers articles from appearing in my news feed since they no longer provide news just sensationalistic click-bait "articles".
Goodbye F-stoppers.
Just think of it like "The Onion." A classic satire/parody site. :-)
I enjoyed reading this article, because it is so misleading and full of opinions that bear no semblance of reality, that it is hilarious. I have been using many mirrorless cameras and their lenses for many years, and they are so much better than DSLR’s, that I could not get back to the big monsters. The fact you have smaller bodies and lenses, the quality of the photos is as good or better, and that you can actually see on the viewfinder and screen what your photo is going to look like, is huge!
I think you need to update yourself.
I wouldn’t go back for anything. I find it interesting how similar the arguments against mirrorless are to those that were used to downplay the benefits of moving from film to digital. It’s much the same thought process and we all know how that turned out.
Yet there are still some who choose film for certain images. Why must you insist that everyone only be allowed to make whatever choice you think they should?
This a pretty pathetic list of personal gripes, with little to no objective information. The EVF is a game changer for almost all aspects of photography IMO, but that's personal taste. I love having full live view and jpg preview. I have enough experience in photography to be able to translate what my EVF is showing me to what I can expect to see in the raw or full size jpg later just fine. Some EVFs are a little smaller than full size, some are a lot smaller. Some are very hi res, some are not. Where's the actual comparison of leading mirrorless EVFs to DSLR viewfinders? New lenses? Yes, that's right, when you change systems you typically have to get new lenses. "Pro's" have been doing this for years with SLR and DSLR systems. There is nothing new here. App connectivity? I love mine, maybe the Nikon just has a shitty app.
There are many whose expertise gives them a good idea what they've got in their raw files when using an OVF. EVFs are good. OVFs are good. Why insist everyone agrees with the choice you made for yourself?
I'm not insisting anyone agree with my opinions on DSLR vs mirrorless, or anything else. In fact I specifically prefaced those thoughts with 'in my opinion' (IMO). My complaint here is with an article of similar personal gripes and opinions being titled and written as an objective or comparative evaluation of mirrorless cameras and DSLRs.
The biggest promise was size but then all the lenses became huge
I don't think the FF mfrs ever promised smaller lenses; just smaller bodies, which compromises balance between the two. Lens size is dictated by the sensor size, particularly with tele lenses.
Oh really I see you bought the koolaid. Before you drink it see a comparison of 50 mm sizes (all fullframe). Also funny that lenses used to be smaller in FF.
PS: no it isn’t ... frame size isn’t the only determining factor for larger lenses.
I think the promise of size came at a time when mirrorless wasn’t up to DSLR quality, when simpler, smaller lenses were being produced. People then did discuss how the mirrorless equivalent of the big, top quality DSLR lenses would eventually make the smaller argument redundant. We can see now that is certainly true. Primes are now the size of zooms! If people weren’t so obsessed with ever more tiny increases in sharpness and ‘creamy backgrounds’, maybe these ridiculous f1.2, f0.95 expensive behemoth mirrorless lenses wouldn’t be necessary.
Photographers keep on demanding fast aperture lenses like f1.4 and also demanding faster and faster AF. This will ensure lens sizes stay huge and heavy.
I stopped before the author admits being a traditionalist. I've already grasped the idea this article is a personal view of some mirrorless toys.
I created an account literally just to comment how awful this article is. It popped up on my Google homepage...I don’t frequent FStoppers (but after browsing some other articles it seems this site is mostly click bait nonsense).
First, no one has said that DSLRs are dead...right now. They absolutely will be, however, outside of rare, niche use cases. To make any argument to the contrary is burying ones head in the sand. Cameras are already a dying business, and DSLRs the dinosaurs of that dying business. Mirrorless continues to improve and there’s really nothing else DSLRs can do at this point aside from increasing resolution and implementing some type of hybrid DSLR/mirrorless system. And neither of those things will help them survive outside of the niche uses mentioned previously. There’s simply no reason, even now, to use a DSLR unless you absolutely have to have one.
I won’t even get into the other absurdities of this article (e.g. pros shoot with both eyes open). The fact websites exist, and thrive, on such drivel is beyond me.
What Jason said. ^
It's 2020, do you still need to put "D" in front of "SLR"?
Yes, because some people still use film. But, I will say 'film' somewhere in the conversation so people grasp what I'm actually talking about.
Thats because there is a follow up article "DSLR isn't All It's Cracked up To Be" arguing no hot-pixels,no sensor-dust, year-long battery for SLRs.
When I take a photo, I'm trying to capture what I am seeing. I only use the viewfinder to frame what's in front of me. Whether it's evf or not is completely irrelevant to me.
Yes they are. If for nothing else, but the sensor-wide eye autofocus.
Yeah, that eye AF sure comes in handy for shooting mountains, trees, products, architectural work...
Just another personal opinion.... Next.
Aren't all opinions, including the one you expressed, personal?
Grndpa, is that you? Have you taken your pills today?
I’ve never read such nonsense. This used to be a good website with intelligent content, not the voice of alleged “pros” who self-promote. A “pro” will use the best tools available to achieve the best possible results and not be emotional about technologies or brands.
Mirrorless didn’t hold up it’s promise of smaller kit. Lenses went bigger, while bodies went smaller. As for other advantages - they’re fairly negligible if you don’t care about video. If you do video Mirrorless is king.
I miss film SLRs!
I don't... because I still use them ;)
Sadly, I lost most of my film gear in a typhoon in the Philippines about 15 years ago.
Damn, sorry to hear that!
nevermind
You sound hurt, are you okay? Where did the mirrorless touch you? Point on the doll.
Kind of sorry I read that...
What a silly article... Get on with the times grandpa
None of what you are saying applies to my specific Nikon Z7 so why whine about this if it its not happening with your camera ? So quit complaining about stuff