How soon mirrorless will replace DSLR for Pros?

Hogloff wrote in post #17043688
Too general of an outlook. I know two wedding photographers that have switched to the A7 camera for the lighter overall package. When you are lugging around two or more cameras hanging off your neck, the weight savings is very noticeable.

certainly agree about weight! just don't think it would be the driving concern unless the output is similar, and I'm not convinced that Canon at least has a product yet that achieves this.

joeseph wrote in post #17044776
certainly agree about weight! just don't think it would be the driving concern unless the output is similar, and I'm not convinced that Canon at least has a product yet that achieves this.

Canon's mirrorless is surely not ready for prime tie, but the latest from Fuji, Olympus and Sony are definitely right up there with the DSLR's with respect to image quality.

I couldn't imagine using an EOS M to photograph the cricket.

To me this debate has absolutely nothing to do with image quality / technology and everything to do with ergonomics.

With my gripped 5D3 I have dedicated buttons for every adjustment I need to make and changes can be made quickly without even looking at the buttons and without removing my eye from the viewfinder. And I can do this in both portrait and landscape orientation. Also the act of holding a DSLR body to your eye, with your elbows close to your body, allows for fast and precise composition and focal length adjustments, as well as the steadiest way to shoot. If you're shooting tripodless, the steadiest way to shoot will ALWAYS be with your elbows tucked into your body and your camera held close to your face with a firm grip on the camera body. No advancements in technology can change the human body and the way it operates. And small P&S and mirrorless bodies are difficult to shoot as quickly and efficiently as DSLR's for that very reason - because they're small.

The real question to be asking is whether mirrorless technology will ever make its way into pro-sized DSLR bodies. And I suspect the answer is sure, why not? But if you're asking if pro-size DSLR bodies will ever go away, the answer is a very clear and obvious "NO". Absolutely not.

For me at least, mirrorless will replace my DSL when the following occurs:

- Same image quality in viewfinder as a DSLR optical VF
- Same response time in viewfinder as a DSLR optical VF (no lag)
- Same size/weight (or less) as my current DSLR

In short, when I literally can't tell the difference between an optical VF and an EVF when I put my eye to the viewfinder, then I'll get serious with it. Part of the satisfaction I get from taking photos with my DSLR is knowing that I'm looking directly through the lens while I'm composing a shot - viewing real photons, as it were.

I've never looked at a current-gen EVF, so I guess I need to do that before sticking my neck out too far. I have a Zacuto Z-Finder for video work and find the viewing experience "acceptable" for what I need it to do, but if a real EVF looks anywhere close to that, I'll pass for now.

CincyTriGuy wrote in post #17046102
To me this debate has absolutely nothing to do with image quality / technology and everything to do with ergonomics.

With my gripped 5D3 I have dedicated buttons for every adjustment I need to make and changes can be made quickly without even looking at the buttons and without removing my eye from the viewfinder. And I can do this in both portrait and landscape orientation. Also the act of holding a DSLR body to your eye, with your elbows close to your body, allows for fast and precise composition and focal length adjustments, as well as the steadiest way to shoot. If you're shooting tripodless, the steadiest way to shoot will ALWAYS be with your elbows tucked into your body and your camera held close to your face with a firm grip on the camera body. No advancements in technology can change the human body and the way it operates. And small P&S and mirrorless bodies are difficult to shoot as quickly and efficiently as DSLR's for that very reason - because they're small.

The real question to be asking is whether mirrorless technology will ever make its way into pro-sized DSLR bodies. And I suspect the answer is sure, why not? But if you're asking if pro-size DSLR bodies will ever go away, the answer is a very clear and obvious "NO". Absolutely not.

Nothing in your post is incompatible with mirrorless.

We have mirrors because technology couldn't do better when the DSLR was introduced. But without a mirror, you can still have your dedicated buttons and still hold your camera to your eye. Mirrorless isn't equivalent with the small P&S cameras in existence. Mirrorless spans a way larger sector of cameras than that.

It's just that we need to replace the optical viewer with an electronic one. So that same professional could still keep his eye to the camera. But now suddenly have electronically amplified eyes that can see with ISO 12800 or more, and that can magnify a specific part of the image, and that can show gridlines, and that can show contrast markers, and can show zebra markings. And can let you see a full-color scene when your normal eyes would basically see monochrome, while overlaying live histograms.

Don't ever see that mirror as something magical you want to keep. See it as a limitation of current technology. Something to improve on.

Snafoo wrote in post #17046126
For me at least, mirrorless will replace my DSL when the following occurs:

- Same image quality in viewfinder as a DSLR optical VF
- Same response time in viewfinder as a DSLR optical VF (no lag)
- Same size/weight (or less) as my current DSLR

First point needs to be broken down into more well-defined parts. On one hand, you can never match the optical VF. On the other hand, you can do magic an optical VF can never do.

Second point - you can never get zero lag. All you can get is "good enough". No electronic viewfinder will never be able to reach the limited lag of the light beam moving a couple of cm inside the camera. But our nerve responses and image processing inside our brain aren't fast enough to require that.

It would be a big fail if a mirrorless body doesn't manage a lower size/weight than a current DSLR.

But the biggest advantages of an EVF would actually be the difference you would be able to see compared to an optical VF. An EVF can make you superman on steroids, just as the captured photos from our current cameras can capture lots of things we can't see with our naked eyes.

pwm2 wrote in post #17046149
Don't ever see that mirror as something magical you want to keep. See it as a limitation of current technology. Something to improve on.

Seems like you didnt read my post very well.

I was very clear that my points were about the ergonomics of a DSLR-sized body. I couldn't give 2 sh*ts about what technology is inside it or whether or not it has a mirror.

pwm2 wrote in post #17046165
First point needs to be broken down into more well-defined parts. On one hand, you can never match the optical VF. On the other hand, you can do magic an optical VF can never do.

Second point - you can never get zero lag. All you can get is "good enough". No electronic viewfinder will never be able to reach the limited lag of the light beam moving a couple of cm inside the camera. But our nerve responses and image processing inside our brain aren't fast enough to require that.

It would be a big fail if a mirrorless body doesn't manage a lower size/weight than a current DSLR.


But the biggest advantages of an EVF would actually be the difference you would be able to see compared to an optical VF. An EVF can make you superman on steroids, just as the captured photos from our current cameras can capture lots of things we can't see with our naked eyes.

I appreciate your point of view, but *in my case*, I don't need or want the HUD-type bells and whistles you describe. I get that to some extent with Magic Lantern and the Z-Finder, and yes it's nice to have, but it can also be a distraction. So when I say that it has to equal an OVF in image quality and response time, I suppose I could have added that any features above and beyond that would be appreciated but not required. But it first must equal an OVF in the areas I described.

re: zero lag time, I suppose I should have added "to the limit of my perception", although it was implied at the end of my post when I said "when I literally can't tell the difference". On a related note, I disagree with your assertion that "you can never match the optical VF". At the present time, yes, but I don't see why an EVF couldn't someday match an OVF - again, to the limit of human perception. That would be good enough for me.

Snafoo wrote in post #17046248
I appreciate your point of view, but *in my case*, I don't need or want the HUD-type bells and whistles you describe. I get that to some extent with Magic Lantern and the Z-Finder, and yes it's nice to have, but it can also be a distraction.

re: zero lag time, I suppose I should have added "to the limit of my perception", although it was implied at the end of my post when I said "when I literally can't tell the difference". On a related note, I disagree with your assertion that "you can never match the optical VF". At the present time, yes, but I don't see why an EVF couldn't someday match an OVF - again, to the limit of human perception. That would be good enough for me.

From a resolution viewpoint, digital is discrete and analog isn't. Both when it comes to number of pixel positions/inch, and when it comes to number of levels of intensity.

But you can reach the level where our eyes can't see any intensity steps or any spatial pixel boundaries.

And another thing - while we can create an EVF that has very good color handling, it's still not easy to match a piece of transparent glass. And should that EVF perform white-balance correction? Or try to be neutral like the glass?

So these are both limitations and strengths with an EVF.

Lots of people shoot MF, but have a hard time to see that the focus really is perfect - an EVF can help with that.

And lots of people shooting AF doesn't always realize exactly where the camera locked focus - an EVF can help with that.

And while our brain does white balance on-the-fly, our sensitivity to colors does depend a lot on the absolute light levels. So we see lots of beautiful colors on a bright day, while everything looks muddy on a dark night - while an EVF can let us still see the nice colors even during the night.

So an EVF isn't just a question of HUD - overlaying extra information. We already do have solutions to project heads-up information while using an optical viewfinder. But an EVF can also boost our normal vision, giving us better night vision. Or letting us zoom in and getting access to the full resolution of the image sensor despite our eyes not having enough resolving power to make use of a 20MP EVF. Or make sure we don't get blinded by a strong light source.

So in the end, an EVF can give you a better image than an OVF, even when it can't match the full spatial and dynamic resolution of an OVF. But of course not without some costs - like power consumtion, extra sensor heating etc.

But in many situations the advantages can win long before the EVF reaches a level that you can't manage to spot that the image isn't from an OVF.

CincyTriGuy wrote in post #17046102
To me this debate has absolutely nothing to do with image quality / technology and everything to do with ergonomics.

With my gripped 5D3 I have dedicated buttons for every adjustment I need to make and changes can be made quickly without even looking at the buttons and without removing my eye from the viewfinder. And I can do this in both portrait and landscape orientation. Also the act of holding a DSLR body to your eye, with your elbows close to your body, allows for fast and precise composition and focal length adjustments, as well as the steadiest way to shoot. If you're shooting tripodless, the steadiest way to shoot will ALWAYS be with your elbows tucked into your body and your camera held close to your face with a firm grip on the camera body. No advancements in technology can change the human body and the way it operates. And small P&S and mirrorless bodies are difficult to shoot as quickly and efficiently as DSLR's for that very reason - because they're small.

The real question to be asking is whether mirrorless technology will ever make its way into pro-sized DSLR bodies. And I suspect the answer is sure, why not? But if you're asking if pro-size DSLR bodies will ever go away, the answer is a very clear and obvious "NO". Absolutely not.

Have you tried shooting with an A7 camera. Plenty of buttons that just about all can be customized to the way you want. I shoot through the viewfinder with my arms tucked in. Don't see the camera limiting me from doing this.

Snafoo wrote in post #17046126
For me at least, mirrorless will replace my DSL when the following occurs:

- Same image quality in viewfinder as a DSLR optical VF
- Same response time in viewfinder as a DSLR optical VF (no lag)
- Same size/weight (or less) as my current DSLR

In short, when I literally can't tell the difference between an optical VF and an EVF when I put my eye to the viewfinder, then I'll get serious with it. Part of the satisfaction I get from taking photos with my DSLR is knowing that I'm looking directly through the lens while I'm composing a shot - viewing real photons, as it were.

I've never looked at a current-gen EVF, so I guess I need to do that before sticking my neck out too far. I have a Zacuto Z-Finder for video work and find the viewing experience "acceptable" for what I need it to do, but if a real EVF looks anywhere close to that, I'll pass for now.

Check out the viewfinder on the A7r camera. I find it provides everything I want in a viewfinder. I think in the next couple years, you'll see the EVF blow away the OVF from a usability viewpoint.

I've completely changed over to mirrorless for video.
It's a bit of a no-brainer.
However, I'm tending to go the other way and considering something like the Phase One for photography. I can deal with the extra weight on top of a standard DSLR if the results are worth it.