[navin_bhp]

Acronym for Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) cameras ;-)

[Thad E Ginathom]

Thank you navin. A real acronym too!

Still, hard to believe that nobody said, "Wait, you want us call them that and expect to sell them?"

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

| had considered mirrorless few months back. Body cost, narrow range of lenses etc turned me away. (May be, I was ignorant too). And yes, faster mode obsolescence too.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

HaHa, I still am, despite having a mirrorless camera. I hope the guy who thought that, as a marketing acronym (I suppose it stands for something?) it would go down really well, got sacked.

At least needs a shrink.

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

Acronym for Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) cameras ;-)

Now I know but see my remark above.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Thank you navin. A real acronym too!

Still, hard to believe that nobody said, "Wait, you want us call them that and expect to sell them?"

Seems they are selling a few. In case of Digital cameras I really do not see the logic of retaining the mirror.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

| had considered mirrorless few months back. Body cost, narrow range of lenses etc turned me away. (May be, I was ignorant too). And yes, faster mode obsolescence too.

Same here, when I was looking for my first digital SLR a year and a bit ago.

[Kosfactor]

As once told by an old man in a camera shop. Mirror less is Sony's way of gate crashing the almost exclusively canon and Nikon party of professional photography.

The unfortunate thing was, although camera became thin and a bit small, pros wanted the same sensor size and there you have it , new technology and same problems starting with massive lens.

So even today, a good DSLR from Canon and Nikon remains to be better investments. I used to have both at the same time, no way to tell them apart once the picture comes out.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Seems they are selling a few. In case of Digital cameras I really do not see the logic of retaining the mirror.

The mirror has a few advantages

1. The view though the lens is unprocessed, that is unlike electronic view finder there is no processing, hence it is normally brighter.

2. Uses much less battery power. Most recent DSLR have a battery life of at least twice and mostly thrice that of mirrorless camera, a boon if you are in the wild and have to carry spare batteries.

The current trend is to have an Electronic View Finder - secondary display that you use similar to traditional DSLR view finder. This consumes much less power than the "Live View" display on older models, but still has lower battery life compared to DSLR.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Sgiitk, do not date to suggest to people that they do not need their flapping mirrors! Unless you are very brave rl;

I don't know, mind you. The last SLR camera I used did not have a D, it had a roll of film. I do seem to remember, though, that looking through the viewfinder in low light was not that great, whereas looking through the viewfinder of my Sony a6000 in a dim room, with a fast lens, is like turning a torch on .

[sgiitk]

@Thad; why do you need the mirror. Remember I have been on SLR's since 1973, before which I had a Zeiss Contina IIIA. With the electronic viewfinder almost exclusively used there is no real need for a mirror system.

[Miyata]

I don't get why the mirrorless have to be more expensive than the regular dslrs. At the end of the day, they have gotten rid of what could be considered vestigial - the mirror, prism, viewfinder window etc...I would imagine that should cut some costs down?

Nonetheless, I am perfectly happy with my older canon body at the moment and prefer to invest in just good quality "aberration-free" lenses whenever I can. Since I mostly stick to still photography, any of the video related features don't interest me much.

I was hoping to see more of the lytro cams in action, but haven't gotten around to them . None in my circle as well.

I'm guessing the next set of features to make their marketing and engineering debut on these could be the adaptive optics!

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

@Thad; why do you need the mirror. ...

Neither do I. But some people turn the mirror into a dogma.

I don't mind if they say, "Mirrorless, today, won't do what my DSLR does for me," but some argue that it never will.

[sgiitk]

@Miyata; I agree. I expect prices to drop as mirrorless units come in.

I may add that the lenses can be more compact. Why, in order to avoid the mirror mechanism there are restrictions on design. It cannot project into the mirror space.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Miyata

I don't get why the mirrorless have to be more expensive than the regular dslrs.

Thats because folks will try to cash on the first mover technology advantage like for any new product segment. Once they becomes commodity prices may fall, maybe along the next few generations.

Of course you balance the cost of EVF and other technology aspects like in body stabilization etc (most DSLRs dont have them)

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Mod samurai has a thread with excellent night pics from what I understand is a mirrorless camera.

Here

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/trave...pictorial.html (Bhoota Kola: A pictorial)

[nilanjanray]

Ahem. Thad and others

To counter some of the tongue in cheek comments, one would have to do a technical deep dive, and also have a discussion about genres, use cases and whether mirrorless is up there yet.

Anyway, who cares about mirror vs no mirror? As long as a body does its job, that's it.

There is a lot more to photography than specs, mirrors (unless it is a queen portrait from Snow White), lenses etc.

IMHO, the biggest constraints are 1. Being at the right place at the right time 2. Improving how one sees and visualises and anticipates.

Technical mastery over gear should be a hygiene factor if one shoots seriously. Camera is just a tool. Just like a vehicle. The thing is, for many folks gear is a status symbol. Just like vehicles. I can understand why a car can be a status symbol, but re photography gear - I don't care whether one is using the latest and greatest, or some basic stuff. The end result matters.

And for end result, nothing beats 'being there'.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by ampere

Thats because folks will try to cash on the first mover technology advantage like for any new product segment. Once they becomes commodity prices may fall, maybe along the next few generations.

Of course you balance the cost of EVF and other technology aspects like in body stabilization etc (most DSLRs dont have them)

True.

But given mirrorless (or camera) volumes, not sure that economies of scale/amortization effect have a chance to kick off. Unlike smartphone tech, where given the scale, most innovations are replicated within a much shorter cycle. For obvious reasons.