SLR w/o A mirror box - Will it Happen??

[SoccerRef]

Over in the "Post the most ridiculous comments you've received with a big lens on!" thread PiRho commented on the comforting sound of the mirror clacking. I responded, and then there were then several responses, so I figured I would just start a new thread here and quote the responses rather than continuing to hijack another thread.

Starting with My post...


Don't get too attached to that sound... As does the micro-four thirds standard, Canon may soon do away with the mirror box. Look at the 5D MkII. Canon kept the mirror box, but that mirror locks up when shooting in movie mode. Canon already has "Live view". It will be much easier to do "Live View" without the mirror. How long do you think it will be before they just do away with the mirror altogether? Fewer moving parts = fewer breakdowns = happier customers.

I think they will put a small monitor inside the viewfinder as most professional photographers will find using a monitor on the back of the camera unacceptable, but they don't HAVE to have a mirror to do that. Not anymore!

My prediction: Within 3 years Canon will announce an interchangable lens body with no mirror box. It will be on their Entry Level Rebel series and it's size will be a huge marketing factor. The technology will work it's way into the remainder of the line within five years of it's initial announcement.

If micro four-thirds takes off (i.e. it's adopted by Sony and Nikon - Olympus is already flirting with it), Canon would be foolish not to adopt it. But that's a subject for another thread...


Sounds like it could be cool, if it is a QUEXGA+++++ screen to give the same resolution as the eye can resolve :p

If it was that good, then you would need to figure out a way to get light to the AF sensor to let it do it's job, then it would be awesome :D



yeah they just need to work out how to stop the sensor from overheating and producing noise, and its all sorted ;)


I want my optical viewfinder!!! :mad: :cry:



No way. Looks how slow focus is with live view. A LCD in the viewfinder would be the same way. Won't work with sports or anywhere you need fast focus, which is why many people go from P&S to DSLR to start with. The mirror is here to stay, IMO.


Keep in mind in the tech industry three years is quite a long time, they could have developed some crazy new tech that makes it way faster with LV, or something which negates the need to use the sensor to focus (dunno how that would happen but they might figure it out) Imagine shooting sports with 24fps and no shutter blackout, pretty much super duper High def video, so in the future, if that does happen, and they work out crazy super AF, then video cameras and DSLRs will merge IMO... (starting to happen, but not really near there yet)

Personally I don't think three years ,but do think it is near certain within 20 years....


My comments were directed at the 3 year time frame. I would be doubtful that it happens at all because nothing will be as fast as light. No matter how fast the electronics get, the processing time will always be slower than the speed of light bouncing off the mirror into the viewfinder, but it may get close enough to be negligible. Maybe.


The micro 4/3rd's system is a neat one, but a gimmick at that. Good for high quality images in a compact body for those every day pics, but that's a niche market for regular consumers. It's basically a compact p&s with interchangeable lens, I don't see many grannies wanting to switch lens in the middle of taking their medicine pills.

I highly doubt in 3 years that any manufacturer will come up with a SLR solution without an actual SLR mechanics for pro level use. The only thing that will potentially kill the SLR market on the pro side are Red camera's. I've yet to see the image quality of a still frame from video, but those are basically 35mm video camera's using red ring glass.

So, What are your thoughts?

[Perry Ge]

A camera without a mirror box is, by definition, not an SLR.

So what you are saying in the thread title is impossible.

[timnosenzo]

I don't know if they would make it or not, it's certainly not something I'm interested in.

[tkbslc]

EVF's suck, plain and simple. Until they make drastic leaps in technology to make the indistinguishable from a OVF, they will never take off in anything but consumer grade SLR type cameras.

[SoccerRef]

A camera without a mirror box is, by definition, not an SLR.

So what you are saying in the thread title is impossible.

I understand that. I meant to put "" around "SLR". By definition they would be "SL" cameras.

[SoccerRef]

EVF's suck, plain and simple. Until they make drastic leaps in technology to make the indistinguishable from a OVF, they will never take off in anything but consumer grade SLR type cameras.

I agree, but they are already starting to show up in "Consumer Grade SLR type" cameras. Which is why I have begun wondering out loud if we will see it soon in anything higher up the ladder...

Think about it. Canon didn't even have a Professional DSLR in 2000. That's only 9 years ago! Now we have the Mark III with 10 fps, etc. The 5D Mark II is shooting HiDef Video. I wouldn't be so quick to use the word "Never"...


I don't know if they would make it or not, it's certainly not something I'm interested in.

In 1998 I am sure there were several people who felt the same way about digital. They weren't ever going to switch away from their film cameras...

[javanutsy]

I might be way off base here, but can't they implement some sort of "electronic" mirror where the opacity/reflectivity is done through electronics? No moving parts, probably faster operation, etc...

[Miyagi-san]

i'm still considering that panny g1, but i'd really like a lens selection larger than 2 lenses...if they had a nice prime lens i'd be in already...

[mitsu13gman]

...In 1998 I am sure there were several people who felt the same way about digital. They weren't ever going to switch away from their film cameras...

It's too funny you should say that. I've been looking at some import auto magazines from the '99-'00 time frame that I just found around the apartment. The film grain, and in some cases just the exposures, are terrible.

I bought my first digital camera in '05 (A70), and swore my next camera would be film because the high-ISO performance was so bad. When I started researching dSLR's later last year, I was stunned by how far they had come. I wouldn't even consider film now, purely from a noise standpoint, never mind the convenience.

To respond to the topic, I agree with those that say we've already got this in the micro-4/3's format. Whether or not it takes off and pushes out the mirror-based units is a whole other issue.

It'll be entertaining to see how it shakes out, regardless!

[Oteck]

I got this gut feeling canon will do this to the rebel when they can properly focus in live view mode... I love the viewfinder but when your on live view your seeing what the sensor can see which is just as good. But a good accurate LCD is needed for this

[Anders Östberg]

I think the mirror will go once you have really good electronic viewfinders.
They will have to become *really* good before they catch on though.

[ssracer]

My Panasonic Lumix FZ8 has an LCD viewfinder. It sucks. The resolution is not nearly where it needs to be for that job. I like the optical VF on the XS much more.

[AJSJones]

They will have to become *really* good before they catch on though.

I just did a very rough alignment and found the image I see through my 5D VF appears as big as a 3x5" object about 12" away (open VF eye with other eye closed then switch, move back and forth until the VF screen and object are aligned - anyone else wanna see if they get similar results?) Let's give us the benefit of good eyesight and say we need 400 ppi at 12" to reach our limit (I believe 300 is more commonly used for 12") ; then we need a VF that is ~1200x2000 pixels - let's say 2.5MP. Current HD chips (for acquisition) are 1080x1920 and BRIGHT OLED's are now appearing in TVs as well as small devices like cell phones. It can't be long before we have a small OLED that could fill the bill in an EVF situation.... Just got to solve the AF issue :(

[Perry Ge]

I really don't like staring at things that emit light (i.e. any kind of screen) for too long - it hurts my eyes. EVFs I imagine would do that.

[brianch]

I have talked to a few representatives about this topic. They all agree that one day high end point and shoots will basically be an SLR without a mirror and viewfinder. But that wouldn't really be an SLR. There are even rumors that one day there will be a Canon Rebel with no mirror 0.0' I think just as long as this doesn't make it onto models like the XXD and XD line then I am fine.

[Familiaphoto]

I would miss my mirror. pouting

[AJSJones]

I really don't like staring at things that emit light (i.e. any kind of screen) for too long - it hurts my eyes. EVFs I imagine would do that.

But not if they are "natural" photons on a focusing screen? There would probably be a "brightness" control :) In the high end ones a complete color management system built in to Digic27 :) Dolby 7.1 would be optional and require L-class microphones.

[Perry Ge]

There would probably be a "brightness" control :) In the high end ones a complete color management system built in to Digic27 :) Dolby 7.1 would be optional and require L-class microphones.

Doesn't matter. A screen is a screen, no matter how bright. Staring at it for too long hurts. I could stare through my 5D's viewfinder all day and I'd be fine.

Edit: Hey no fair you edited :p. A focusing screen doesn't emit light. Sunlight can be a lot brighter than a computer screen, but staring at a computer screen continuously makes me dizzy, not so with natural, reflected light.

[AJSJones]

Doesn't matter. A screen is a screen, no matter how bright. Staring at it for too long hurts. I could stare through my 5D's viewfinder all day and I'd be fine.

Oops, my edit crossed your reply - sorry:)
In fairness, however, the flicker of a computer screen can be problematic. However, displays that operate at 120Hz are becoming commonplace these days so even that should diminish as the technology moves on.

[ssracer]

There was just a thread the other day talking a new line of cameras from Panasonic and Olympus that would have interchangeable lenses, but no mirror box. Thus being lighter and smaller than a DSLR.

[adas]

EVF will suck your battery dead.

[Anders Östberg]

EVF will suck your battery dead.

No problem, by the time EVFs are good enough we'll also have fuel cell batteries. :)

[AJSJones]

... say we need 400 ppi at 12" to reach our limit (I believe 300 is more commonly used for 12") ; then we need a VF that is ~1200x2000 pixels - let's say 2.5MP. Current HD chips (for acquisition) are 1080x1920 and BRIGHT OLED's are now appearing in TVs as well as small devices like cell phones. It can't be long before we have a small OLED that could fill the bill in an EVF situation...


Here (http://www.eetimes.com/conf/ces/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205601486&kc=5023) is an announcement of a 0.44" "OLED on silicon" microdisplay that has 11 micron pixels for 600x800 so a 1.25" display like that would more than meet our needs of 1800x2400...

[cdifoto]

I have talked to a few representatives about this topic. They all agree that one day high end point and shoots will basically be an SLR without a mirror and viewfinder. But that wouldn't really be an SLR. There are even rumors that one day there will be a Canon Rebel with no mirror 0.0' I think just as long as this doesn't make it onto models like the XXD and XD line then I am fine.
Representatives of what?

[SoccerRef]

There was just a thread the other day talking a new line of cameras from Panasonic and Olympus that would have interchangeable lenses, but no mirror box. Thus being lighter and smaller than a DSLR.

Yup. That is what the micro 4/3s standard is all about. A standard lens mount across multiple brands. You would in essence be able to put an Olympus lens on the Panasonic. The Micro 4/3s standard projects the image directly to the sensor and electronically projects that image into the viewfinder, thus the EVF (Electronic View Finder) rather than an OVF (Optical View Finder).

For a lot more information, go to this site... http://www.four-thirds.org/

[brianch]

Representatives of what?

Camera manufacturers. Canon, Sony, olympus, nikon, panasonic.

[gjl711]

I for one would love to see the whole mirror assemble disappear. It is the greatest source of focusing errors we have today. With three different light paths, one for exposure, one for auto focusing, and one for manual focusing the chances of something going wrong with one of the paths is too great.

Secondly, an optical viewfinder is so limiting. All you can see is what is showing in available light. An electronic viewfinder can display a full color image, a B/W high contrast image, an IR image for focusing in very low light, a 5x, 10x zoomed in image for critical focus, just about anything one can thing of. Lastly, it will reduce the size and weight of current equipment. I am getting tired of toting around a backpack full of gear weighing 25 pounds or more just to get a good image. Every ounce removed is a step in the right direction.