The mirror and slr?

[Reef Bass]

Historically, single lens reflex cameras offered two primary advantages, the abilities to change lenses and to see in the viewfinder through the lens exactly what would be striking the film emulsion. No parallax.

With the advent of the digital imaging sensor, it is possible to see exactly what is striking the sensor without requiring a mirror. Some dslr manufacturers are making interchangeable lens cameras without mirrors.

While I've been working with slr type cameras for almost 40 years, I could embrace a mirrorless system. IMHO, this would allow for a physical change eliminating the mirror mechanism, resulting in reductions in size, weight and mechanical complexity. No moving parts. And possibly even improved ergonomics as the physical size of the image capture mechanism is no longer a driving design consideration.

When I shoot remotely using live view, the mirror is locked up and out of the way and I don't have to peer through a tiny viewfinder to try to focus something pinpoint sharp. I love that.

While I'm not about to jump on the Sony A7, if Canon made a full frame mirrorless with an EF mount, I'd consider moving to it. This is also consistent with the guideline of invest in lenses and swap out your back as needed.

What are your thoughts on the future of the mirror and slr design?

Does the mirror do something for you in your process that you would miss?

Or will slr cameras soon be joining vinyl record players and CRT displays on the obsolete hardware shelves of history?

 

[Misled]

That would be cool, but weight is something that helps with some of Nikon's best lenses. It really balances it out. I wouldn't miss the mirror though. It all can easily be done electronically. Thinking about it though, why not take it further than that. Think about what kind of distance you could get out of a lens if the sensor and the glass of the lens could both move. How about doing the aperture electronically? I think putting more in the body and making the lens just glass could have some neat advantages.

 

[gregr]

I got a Fuji XT-1 recently and love it. The DSLR only comes out now when I need to shoot macro stuff with a flash (no macro flash available yet for the Fuji) and for wildlife because I don't have anything longer than 300mm- yet. Next year they're supposed to come out with a super telephoto and once I have that I'll probably be selling all my DSLR gear.

 

[Mr31415]

The big thing holding mirrorless back right now is autofocus performance. Sony's A7r has a much better sensor than anything Canon has - as a owner of both the A7r and the 1DX I can attest to that. However I will not try and photograph a running toddler inside a house (i.e. low ambient illumination) with the Sony. It is just too slow.

That said, things are changing quickly. My Olympus OM-D E-M1 with micro four third lenses approaches the speed required to be a very well rounded versatile camera. In fact, in terms of performance only the most demanding situations render it useless, such as birds in flight, sports photography etc. Problem is to get the reach, you need four third lenses and these are still very slow on the E-M1.

In time I am sure SLR will go extinct like Kodak, dot matrix printers and floppy disks. Once performance catches up, there is no reason for keeping the mirror box. The EVF of the OM-D E-M1 is so incredibly good that I do not miss the 1DX's viewfinder. For me, it is only down to AF performance now.

 

[gregr]

I felt the same way about autofocus when I was using what's now my backup- an XE1. A couple months ago I got an XT-1 and even though it's not as fast as my DSLR it's now usable in all situations. I tried it recently with my 5 year old niece and there were very few misses. That's not the last hurdle but it's only a matter of time now as I'm sold on the bottom line- image quality. Price and weight are the icings on the cake.