Interesting about mirrorless

[fotografz]

I don't know Thom Hogan, nor have I particularly followed anything he has had to say in past. I just reread this specific "commentary", and found it well balanced ... both in support of "Mirror-less, but also pointing out current shortcomings that potential users of cameras may encounter in the near term.

What's the harm in that? All it does is inform readers of a perspective that may save them a premature investment into a system that won't meet their specific needs in leu of "buying the system" to find that out.

I also find the terminology a bit misleading. "Mirror-less" is nothing new ... every Leica M ever made is mirror-less, so are most consumer cameras way back to the Kodak Brownie ... as are all view cameras, tech cameras and MF cameras like the Mamiya and Fuji rangefinders or Hasselblad SWC.

The revolution revolves around the method of viewing the image from a Mirror-less camera. This is all about OVF making the transition to EVF ... and the elimination of the SLR mirror-box or complex rangefinder method of viewing. Thus the ability to return to smaller cameras verses DSLRs.

My experiences with mirror-less/evf has been limited to Sony due to a preference for FF. To be clear, I love the notion of "you see what you get" right in the viewfinder.

Those experiences have also informed me of current limitations for many critical applications ... requiring a DSLR to fill in for those applications. It is those current mirror-less/evf limitations that Mr. Hogan touches upon, and discrediting him personally doesn't alter that.

- Marc

 

[Godfrey]

Thom Hogan has many viewpoints, and I don't always agree with him, but he presents some sensible thoughts in this article about mirrorless cameras. Well worth reading.

The Good News, Bad News Mirrorless Problem | Sans Mirror — mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

Nipping from the bottom of his article ...

..I just don’t think mirrorless is the be-all, end-all product that DLSRs had been for so long. Maybe there isn’t one any more, and you simply use mirrorless for one set of tasks and DSLRs for another.

".. for so long .."? Hmm. Digital SLRs became the center-focus of interchangeable lens, large sensor cameras a scant 11-12 years ago (2003-4) with the introduction of the popularly priced Canon Rebel digital. My memory of cameras goes back beyond that by four decades, and I don't ever recall there being a "be-all, end-all" camera. 35mm SLRs were very versatile and got the majority of the advanced amateur and pro use from the middle '60s to the dawn of the affordable-by-less-than-governments-and-corporations digital era, but were always expensive compared to the vast majority of cameras sold. And, for the the AAs and the PROs, there were always medium format, large format, etc as well. Be-all and end-all is a bit of hyperbole.

The last sentence is mostly correct, just needs a little elision and addition:

"You should simply use mirrorless for one set of tasks, RFs for others, and DSLRs for still others—and other cameras outside of those three for the rest."

G

 

[4season]

DSLRs are not a BAEA solution and never were! The more "serious" they are, the larger, heavier and more visible they tend to become: You choose your compromises and pay your money.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

DSLRs are not a BAEA solution and never were! The more "serious" they are, the larger, heavier and more visible they tend to become: You choose your compromises and pay your money.

Most cameras are visible, and few cameras are more visible than a camera phone held at arm's length.

 

[4season]

few cameras are more visible than a camera phone held at arm's length.

I'd feel conspicuous in 2013's crowd if I weren't holding up a phone or tablet.