Mirrorless lets more light in? huh?

The waves off part of SoCal are glowing blue at night. I saw this headline:

Neon blue waves move to South OC, South Bay, here are tips on how to view, shoot images

https://www.ocregister​.com …how-to-view-shoot-images/

With this:

He recommends doing a slightly longer exposure, but not to the point where waves look blurry. He also said to use a very high ISO so the camera can capture the fainter light of the blue glow.

"And you’ll need a camera lens with as low of an aperture as possible. My photos from Manhattan Beach were shot with a 70-200mm 2.8 lens," he said. "But if you really want the best shots, a mirrorless camera is great for this, because they allow so much more light in."

Am I missing something? I own two DSLRs and one mirrorless at the moment. Could he be referring to the EVF's exposure boost helping him manual focus? Because as far as I know, exposure is exposure regardless of mirror or not.

Exposure is shutter and aperture.

Until you add ISO and sensor and viewfinder...? Sounds like the exposure triangle has been promoted to the exposure pentagon.

mike_d wrote in post #19055394
The waves off part of SoCal are glowing blue at night. I saw this headline:

Neon blue waves move to South OC, South Bay, here are tips on how to view, shoot images

https://www.ocregister​.com …how-to-view-shoot-images/

With this:

He recommends doing a slightly longer exposure, but not to the point where waves look blurry. He also said to use a very high ISO so the camera can capture the fainter light of the blue glow.

"And you’ll need a camera lens with as low of an aperture as possible. My photos from Manhattan Beach were shot with a 70-200mm 2.8 lens," he said. "But if you really want the best shots, a mirrorless camera is great for this, because they allow so much more light in."

Am I missing something? I own two DSLRs and one mirrorless at the moment. Could he be referring to the EVF's exposure boost helping him manual focus? Because as far as I know, exposure is exposure regardless of mirror or not.

What you are missing (and i don't think you are) is the person quoted is either a moron, or at best guilty of trying to simplify in the worst possible way.

Yes, you are missing the point that there is much bad information spread via the internet....either flat out wrong, or very badly explained.

The potential for the mirrorless system (camera and lens) design will perform better w/ respect to letting more light in. E.g. EOS R line with larger mount, distance from mount to film plane shorter, and larger aperture.

The simplification that’s quoted in OP is accurate and we shouldn’t quiver about the details, if you aren’t willing to provide any insights.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19055423
What you are missing (and i don't think you are) is the person quoted is either a moron, or at best guilty of trying to simplify in the worst possible way.

Exactly! The individual that wrote that statement doesn’t realize that that mirror flips up in a DSLR allowing the maximum amount of light to hit the sensor.

Trey T wrote in post #19056012
The potential for the mirrorless system (camera and lens) design will perform better w/ respect to letting more light in. E.g. EOS R line with larger mount, distance from mount to film plane shorter, and larger aperture.

The simplification that’s quoted in OP is accurate and we shouldn’t quiver about the details, if you aren’t willing to provide any insights.

What does that matter unless you install a bigger sensor (with appropriate lens) to collect that extra light potentially coming through the mount?

Trey T wrote in post #19056012
The potential for the mirrorless system (camera and lens) design will perform better w/ respect to letting more light in. E.g. EOS R line with larger mount, distance from mount to film plane shorter, and larger aperture.

The simplification that’s quoted in OP is accurate and we shouldn’t quiver about the details, if you aren’t willing to provide any insights.

How exactly does a larger diameter mount with a shorter flange distance add light to the sensor? Does wider but shorter air/space really have that much impact on the light hitting the sensor?

The OP could possible have been referring to the light seen thru the viewfinder of a mirrorless camera but worded it poorly.

mike_d wrote in post #19056029
What does that matter unless you install a bigger sensor (with appropriate lens) to collect that extra light potentially coming through the mount?

That’s a different path of conversation. I’m just making an argument that there are good reasons why Canon chose to modify their design, from EOS EF to R

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19056031
How exactly does a larger diameter mount with a shorter flange distance add light to the sensor? Does wider but shorter air/space really have that much impact on the light hitting the sensor?

Do you want me to quantify it or qualify it?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19056031
How exactly does a larger diameter mount with a shorter flange distance add light to the sensor? Does wider but shorter air/space really have that much impact on the light hitting the sensor?

^
To ask a parallel question in support of TeamSpeed's questioning the validity of believing that a larger size throat (same diameter mount opening!!!) and shorter flange distance = 'more light' on sensor...

So if I use ) 150mm lens at f/8 on a 4x5" monorail camera, with a 150mm distance to the film plane vs. B) 150mm lens at 150mm f/8 lens on a 135 format dSLR...
then a parallel line of thinking says "A 4" x 5" monorail has a 20 sq. in. 'throat' (compared to 3.5 sq. in throat of Canon) so it, too, lets 'more light' get to the film plane,
yet both 4x5 and 135/FF use the same exposure if both are set to ISO 100
...so where is there 'more light' because of a bigger throat?!

Trey T wrote in post #19056090
Do you want me to quantify it or qualify it?

Both please.

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet."
-Abraham Lincoln

Maybe the author was referring to the fact that most mirrorless cameras are less than 3 years old, and because of the, generally speaking, have more modern sensors than the average DSLR our there has. The average mirrorless will have better high iso performance then the average dslr out there, because dslrs have been around a lot longer and their for their average age is a lot older.

Now if they were referring to "new" cameras... that would not be true.. they are about the same. But most people will grab whats in the closet, and yes, the average mirrorless will do better simply because they are newer. Your not going to shoot with a 10 year old mirrorless, because there aren't that many 10 your old mirrorless cameras.

And yes, a longer light path will cause more diffraction of light.... but I doubt that was what was being referred to. A few CM distance isn't gong to make that big of a difference.