". But somehow they bypassed the question of which is better, a DSLR or a mirrorless one? Today we will catch up and talk about the differences between two types of photographic equipment - mirrorless and SLR cameras. Go.

What is a reflex camera?

Reflex camera is a camera whose viewfinder is based on a mirror. In general, there are single-lens and dual-lens reflex cameras. But since in the world of digital photography there is only room for the first type, it will be discussed further.

The first single-lens reflex camera appeared in 1861. Yes, while serfdom had just been abolished in Russia, the camera had already been invented in England. That is, the history of the SLR camera began in the century before last, more than 150 years ago.

Of course, the first SLR cameras were very different from what we have now. One of the differences is the use of film. Today, film, as you all know very well, has practically died out and exists only thanks to enthusiasts who fell in love with film photography a long time ago. Digital technologies have made it possible to replace the film in the camera with a matrix.

Let's get back to the SLR camera. Every DSLR has a mirror-based viewfinder. The mirror is at an angle of 45 degrees and allows you to see a real non-digitized picture through the viewfinder. The mechanism is generally quite simple in terms of understanding. Through the lens, light (and the image, respectively) enters the camera body, where a mirror is installed at an angle of 45 degrees. The light reflected by the mirror rushes up, where it enters the pentaprism (or pentamirror), which wraps the image, giving it a normal orientation. Simply put, if there were no pentaprism, the image in the viewfinder would look upside down. That's all. This is the optical viewfinder - a distinctive feature of any DSLR.

What is a mirrorless camera?

mirrorless as well as a SLR camera has interchangeable lenses. But, as you understand from the name, it does not have a reflex viewfinder. Instead of a viewfinder, inexpensive cameras use a screen, while more expensive cameras use an electronic viewfinder. In fact, unlike the optical one, such a viewfinder shows us a digitized image. We can say that this is a small screen. It has a certain resolution, which is indicated in the specifications of the camera. Naturally, as with a monitor, the higher the resolution, the better.

Why is a DSLR better than a mirrorless camera?

Let's start by talking about why a DSLR is better than a mirrorless one.

  • Optical viewfinder- not only a feature of a SLR camera, but also its advantage over a mirrorless one. There are several reasons. First, the optical viewfinder shows the picture in real time, raw and undigitized. That is, the way your eye would see it without a viewfinder. Secondly, when using an electronic viewfinder, there is a slight image delay that an optical one does not have. Those. with the latter you always see the picture in real time.
  • Phase detection autofocus- it is peculiar only to SLR cameras. The latest mirrorless models have learned to use phase sensors on the matrix, thereby giving rise to a hybrid focusing system, but today it still does not reach the speed of focusing a SLR camera.
  • Ergonomics mirrors are better. This is due, among other things, to the fact that the pentaprism mirror itself takes up quite a lot of space in the carcass. Because of this, in fact, these cameras are so large. But this minus turns into a plus when you need to control the camera: especially professional cameras have excellent access to all important functions using buttons, wheels and other controls placed on the carcass. Of particular note is the optional monochrome display, which is found on large DSLRs and is never found on mirrorless cameras. This display helps a lot with professional shooting, and for amateur shooting it is never superfluous.
  • Huge optics park. Remember, we talked about the fact that SLR cameras have been produced for a century and a half? Nikon started producing cameras in the 1950s. To date, the fleet of Nikon optics is huge and continues to grow. Of course, mirrorless cameras are still far from such wealth.
  • Price SLR cameras are generally lower. Specific example. There is a Nikon D5100 with a Nikon 35mm 1.8G DX lens. This is a very inexpensive kit, its cost is less than 20 thousand. You need to spend a lot more money to get the same quality with a mirrorless camera.
  • SLR camera turns on much faster than mirrorless. In a fraction of a second, while mirrorless cameras can turn on for 3 seconds.
  • Working hours SLR cameras on a single battery charge is significantly higher than mirrorless cameras. And the batteries themselves are usually more capacious. Thus, amateur cameras like the Nikon D7100 can shoot one and a half thousand frames on a single charge. Professional equipment, like the Nikon D4, is capable of snapping more than 3,000 shots on a single battery charge with the help of a photographer.
  • SLR cameras more reliable. Some of them have dust and moisture protection. That is why you are unlikely to see a photographer with a Sony A7 in the savannah. But with the Canon 1Dx - there's nothing to do. There are more of them than lions and bison ...

So, the main thing: today professional photography mirrorless camera is almost impossible. SLR camera for commercial shooting is preferable. And the amateur must decide for himself whether the advantages of a DSLR are important to him, or what the mirrorless offers is enough. And more on that below.

Why is mirrorless better than DSLR?

Yes, but are there any advantages to a mirrorless camera that a SLR does not? Eat. And now we'll talk about them.

Olympus is one of the most popular mirrorless cameras on the market.

  • Size. This is the most obvious. Less mirrorless. Optics for such cameras are also more compact. The end result is a mirrorless system that is smaller than a DSLR, but still delivers the same quality shots.
  • Electronic viewfinder. Electronic viewfinders have their advantages too. First, they can display various additional information. Secondly, such viewfinders will be more convenient for nearsighted people. The optical viewfinder must be used with glasses or use the diopter correction function, which is enough for vision at -2.5, but if the minus is greater, then alas. The electronic viewfinder, as we said above, is a small screen. And, of course, when used by a nearsighted person, there are no problems with it.
  • Big choice manufacturers. Mirrorless cameras are now produced by the following companies: Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm, Samsung. But affordable DSLRs are produced only by the first 3 companies plus Pentax.

What do DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have in common?

There is something that unites these cameras.

  • Matrix. The most important part of a digital camera. A couple of years ago, I could have said that mirrorless cameras do not have a full-frame sensor. But Sony fixed this by releasing the A7 series cameras. They have matrices that are not inferior to those used in SLR cameras. We have already talked about matrices more than once, there is no need to repeat them.
  • Consistency. For some reason, many people call mirrorless cameras system cameras, forgetting that SLR cameras also belong to this class. This is the similarity between DSLRs and mirrorless cameras - these are system cameras that are characterized by interchangeable lenses.

What is better? Mirror or mirrorless?

There is no definite answer to this question. Everyone must make their choice based on needs. My opinion is that DSLRs are still far superior to mirrorless cameras today. For me personally, when choosing a camera, the most important criteria are speed (focusing, switching on), a wide choice of optics and price (both for the camera and for lenses). Yes, you don’t always want to take a huge mirror set with you. Better to have a choice. For example, for large (long, important, etc.) shootings, have a SLR, but for the soul - something small, maybe not even a mirrorless camera, but a compact camera like Fuji x100s or the like. But if you choose one single camera, then I repeat, I would choose a DSLR. But this is just my opinion. What would you choose?

Articles

Professional cameras with interchangeable lenses, but how to choose?

So, having received hundreds of likes on Instagram, having played enough with soap dishes and simple cameras, you finally decided to buy a serious, professional camera. One that will not only allow you to create beautiful photos, but also, possibly, build a business.

A few years ago, there was not much choice - for professional photography, you had to buy a SLR camera. But that all changed in 2009 when Olympus launched its first mirrorless camera, the Pen E-P1.

True, not everything is limited by the number of megapixels, since the size of the matrix remains the most important factor in this regard. Full frame sensors are larger and tend to offer better quality. APS-C will cost less, although it cannot be said that they are worse. Both types of sensors can be found on both types of cameras.

Micro 4/3, which is used on Panasonic and Olympus cameras, is smaller than APS-C, both the cameras themselves and the lenses for them are smaller. Therefore, the question here is what is more important - size or chic quality.


  • Battery

    • Most DSLRs can shoot an average of 600-800 shots on a single charge. Top cameras can handle more than 1000 frames (it is clear that they will be more expensive). Mirrorless cameras in this regard are weaker and are able to shoot 300-400 frames per charge. If you need more frames from the camera, you will have to stock up on additional batteries.

    With such a wide gap between the capabilities of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, you need to clearly understand what is more important for the user. The Nikon D7200 DSLR and the Fuji X-T2 mirrorless are about the same in terms of parameters. But the first is capable of shooting 1100 frames, and the second - 340 per charge. The performance among the other "parallel" cameras will be very similar.

    Why exactly this happens is difficult to say, perhaps the matter is in the mechanics, the size of the battery and the operation of the display.


    If you take a cheap segment, then a budget DSLR will provide more features than a similar mirrorless one. So for those who want more and cheaper, a DSLR is still the best solution.

    An example is the Nikon D3300 SLR camera from the budget segment, equipped with an APS-C matrix, an optical viewfinder, manual settings, a battery that can withstand 700 frames and a bayonet mount that provides access to all Nikon lenses.

    The similarly priced mirrorless Sony Alpha A6000 is equipped with almost the same 24MP APS-C sensor and has an electronic viewfinder. But the battery will need a spare.

    At the amateur and professional level, the differences are less noticeable. Smaller and lighter won't always equal cheaper, but it's worth remembering that only more expensive mirrorless cameras will have a viewfinder.

    The final choice in favor of any type of camera is impossible to make. It all depends entirely on personal preferences and goals. If this is photography in the most serious sense, as a profession, it is best not to deviate from the classics yet and trust the choice of professionals - a SLR camera. For a beginner in photography, likewise, a SLR camera will give more advantages. But when it comes to amateur photography or video shooting, it's better to give a chance to mirrorless cameras. At the very least, they are much easier to transport.

    Updated: 08/03/2016 Oleg Lazhechnikov

    121

    Those who follow me on social networks could already see that I had a kind of revolution in my mind and I switched to a mirrorless camera. She became the Sony Alpha a6000. Unfortunately, the post was not paid for, since they did not answer me anything to my letter of cooperation, so I had to buy for my own money. But now the post is not about the camera, but the sensations after the transition, so Sony still has time to think again :)

    Also, there will be no test comparative shots in the post, because now I don’t have a DSLR with me, I didn’t take it to Warsaw. After all, initially everything was started for the sake of reducing weight, otherwise nothing fits into my hand luggage. In short, mirrorless is a lifesaver!

    Previously, I was completely skeptical about mirrorless cameras, they did not suit me in various ways. But time passed, and now mirrorless cameras are no longer technically inferior to mirror counterparts. It seems to me that a little more and there may be nothing left of the class of amateur DSLRs at all, there will be no point in them. Although for now they are a good alternative because of the price, since mirrorless ones are more expensive. Actually, therefore, for beginners, I would still advise for the time being, simply because of the savings. But, if the question of price is not worth it, then you can safely take something Nex-o-like from Sony or other brands.

    After I realized that technically I get almost the same camera (corresponding to my needs), such a minus as ergonomics came to the fore. Although I am not a reporter, you get used to the convenience of management very quickly. Looking through the viewfinder, you can change settings in a fraction of a second by turning the various wheels blindly. Also, the Canon 7d camera focuses very quickly (and almost does not smear), it is instantly ready for use after turning it on. It seems, you might think, a fraction of a second, but it is difficult to abandon the usual, especially since the new camera is in a similar price category. It's like a phone, if it starts to slow down, and you wait a few seconds for the application to load, then such a phone starts to irritate quickly. This is what I feared here.

    About six months ago, I twisted the Nex-5 and Nex-6 (previous models) in my hands and I liked everything. Lightweight, compact, good pictures too. A6000 is even better, it has faster focus, more convenient controls and menus. Therefore, before the next trip, I decided sharply (one day) and bought it, having received the box the day before before departure. In fact, it was only at the airport that I used the camera for the first time.

    Reasons for the transition

    The main reason for the transition was that I was tired of carrying heavy things with me, and it was no longer possible to take something large with me. Although I only have a Canon 7d carcass and two lenses 24-105 and 11-16 for it, it still came out 2 kg. Plus, additional batteries, chargers, remote control, filters, tripod (1kg), that is, a total of about 3-4 kg minimum. My hand luggage on the plane usually weighed under 10 kg along with a laptop and other things. In general, all this ceased to fit normally in the one with which I usually travel.

    In the end, I just looked the truth in the eye and realized that I haven’t taken the whole set with me for a long time, since most often we go somewhere together, and I also have Egor’s toys in my backpack, some food, his clothes and etc. Or even, if I take a DSLR with me, then it is inconvenient for me to dig it out of my backpack, and I take pictures on my phone. It's no good.

    The second reason for the transition is mainly photos for my blog, and this is only 900px wide, sometimes more. For two years I also printed a couple of times in total, and the size of 15x20 does not require much. Thus, it is quite possible to reduce your requirements for a camera for every day (for a travel camera), but not for a wedding photographer.

    What did I get

    The weight of the Sony a6000 camera with an 18-105 lens is about 0.9 kg. It seems also not a little, but still unusually easy. In addition, you can put a smaller lens, up to a small pancake, and the camera can even be put in your pocket. But for now I don’t plan anything else, one lens will suffice, as a universal one. In fact, it covers almost all the focal lengths I need when traveling, only the width of 10-18 is sometimes not enough. Also, I will not buy any additional filters, remote controls for now, and I will change my tripod to something completely miniature and light. In general, it turned out very compactly, I am satisfied, the main task is completed. It remains to sell the DSLR with accessories and just all purchases will pay off.

    Camera crop 1.5, that is, the matrix is ​​the same size as I had. Shoots in RAW, then everything lends itself well to processing in Lightroom. The dynamic range seems to be good too, I won’t say that I see a noticeable difference, to be honest, I don’t see it at all. ISO working up to 1600-3200, but 3200 is already noisy for me. The picture is nice, but different, the color reproduction is different. Bokeh has changed.

    In general, if it were not for speed, then there are no complaints at all, even to ergonomics, because after all it is rarely necessary. But the speed is also solvable, you just have to remember to set the burst shooting mode, as the machine gun scribbles then.

    Life hack 1 - how to buy good insurance

    It is unrealistically difficult to choose insurance now, therefore, to help all travelers, I am compiling a rating. To do this, I constantly monitor forums, study insurance contracts and use insurance myself.

    Life hack 2 - how to find a hotel for 20% cheaper

    Thank you for reading

    4,77 out of 5 (ratings: 64)

    Comments (121 )

      Eugene

      Mila Demenkova

      Natalie

      Alexander

      Andrey

      land_driver

      Tatiana

      Paul

      Kotovsky

      Kostya

      Julia

      Kachubey

      Mikhail Schwartz

      Alexander

      Angelina

      Ovsyannikovs

      Anton Zh

      Ruslan

      Andrey Lunyachek

      Andrey

      Kildor

      Victoria Camilleri

      Marybe

      Andriusiks

      for world travel

      Viktoria Zlata

      for world travel

      Interestingly, just a few years ago, it was enough to mention the comparison of Nikon with Canon in order to spark a fierce discussion. Websites and forums were filled with endless controversy, as soon as someone dared to post something like: "I gave up my Nikon camera and switch to Canon" (and God forbid you say something against Pentax - you would be bombarded with curses and death threats). At present, everything seems to have changed - users are much less enthusiastic about the differences between DSLRs from one manufacturer to another. Passing on the fighting photo communities now moved on to discussing the comparison of DSLRs with mirrorless cameras.

      On one side of the barricades are DSLR users, defending their position with statements like: "You can only take the DSLR out of my hands when I'm dead!" And on the other - people who say: "The future belongs to mirrorless cameras, it's time to say goodbye to the flapping mirror!". Both sides of the dispute give their arguments and arguments, which are not without meaning, but as soon as emotions begin to prevail in the dispute, it becomes unconvincing and meaningless.

      So, at the moment we can see how manufacturers are attacking each other. Sony, Fuji and some other manufacturers often compare their cameras with DSLRs in marketing campaigns, pointing out the advantages of their systems in terms of weight, dimensions, etc. DSLR manufacturers, on the other hand, counter the autofocus speed, reliability and performance of DSLRs. Whatever it was, but the fact remains - DSLRs are losing their market share, and user interest in mirrorless technologies is growing steadily.

      We have already compared the weight and dimensions of a SLR camera with a mirrorless one. Let's go back to the topic of comparing DSLRs to mirrorless cameras again and analyze a few more important factors.

      Recently, as part of the X-Pro2 announcement, Fuji released an image showing a mirrorless camera with two cans of beer balancing one DSLR camera, along with the text: "2 extra 500ml beers":

      This marketing ploy clearly shows how absurd and absurd the opposition of SLR and mirrorless cameras is today.

      Nikon is clearly unhappy with its financial performance, leading the company to attribute the failure of its economic outlook to the global state of the economy - and this has been going on quarter after quarter, year after year for the past few years. While the global financial crisis is certainly one of the reasons for the low sales, Nikon and Canon certainly feel threatened by mirrorless competitors who are pushing their products harder and more aggressively. In a recent video, Nikon's marketers also compared the D500 to a mirrorless camera, highlighting their product's faster and more reliable autofocus system. And this only confirms that Nikon is scared by the growth trend in the mirrorless segment.

      Do mirrorless cameras really have a size and weight advantage? Do DSLRs still have the fastest and most reliable autofocus system? What other nuances should be taken into account when comparing these systems? Let's try to figure it out.

      Mirror camera or mirrorless? Comparison of weight and dimensions

      After using Nikon DSLRs for the past 10 years, I'm more into DSLRs than mirrorless cameras: it's a system I can trust and I see value in developing further. SLR is able to meet the needs of almost any genre and type of photography. At the same time, in the last few years, I have gained experience shooting with new generation mirrorless cameras, which, in my opinion, are also quite attractive.

      One of the benefits of switching to mirrorless cameras, which we are constantly told about, is their lighter weight and dimensions. But are mirrorless cameras smaller and lighter than DSLRs enough to warrant such an advantage?

      We have already considered this issue in detail and came to the conclusion that . True, a mirrorless camera will always be lighter than its DSLR counterpart - it has fewer mechanical components and is thinner - but this difference is not so significant, and it only applies to the camera body itself.

      First, it takes some time for a potential buyer to realize that "more is not always better".

      With a lens attached, a full-frame mirrorless camera has no weight advantage over a DSLR with a lens! So if you have a backpack full of photographic equipment, then the only thing you can save space and weight on is the camera body. And once you add a couple of batteries to a mirrorless camera, its weight advantage becomes even less noticeable.

      At the time of launch, Sony's slogan was "Lighter and Smaller", but by the time of the announcement and the updated line of G-lenses, it became clear that Sony began to rely on excellent handling, ergonomics and professional quality lenses, and not on weight advantages. and dimensions. And the new G-series lenses cannot be lighter than their DSLR counterparts, simply because it is impossible to defeat the laws of optics. While a shorter focal length allows for a lens with some weight and size savings, these savings will be negligible.

      Where mirrorless cameras really have a weight and size advantage is in the APS-C sensor segment. Unfortunately, DSLR manufacturers are extremely slow to offer attractive lenses for APS-C DSLRs. For example, if we compare Fujifilm lenses with Nikon DX lenses, we see that among the former there is a much wider selection of lenses designed specifically for the Fuji X mount, while most Nikon DX lenses are represented by slow zooms that force users of the Nikon DX system sooner or later switch to more expensive, bulky and heavy full-frame FX lenses. From this point of view, mirrorless cameras are superior to their competitors, since lenses specifically designed for small sensors will always be lighter and more compact. Canon is no better in this regard - most of the manufacturer's APS-C lenses are also represented by slow zooms.

      The Future of APS-C SLR Cameras

      That's why I've been saying for years that APS-C DSLRs have no future. Without an extensive lineup of quality APS-C lenses, neither Nikon nor Canon will be able to provide an adequate alternative to mirrorless cameras. Four years ago, in my Why DX Has No Future article, I argued that the lack of high-quality lenses put DSLRs at a disadvantage compared to mirrorless cameras in terms of weight and size. And now I have become even more convinced in my opinion - I believe that mirrorless cameras will prevail in the APS-C camera segment in the future. Mirrorless camera manufacturers such as Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and others are focused on creating lenses for their non-full frame cameras, and the benefits of this approach are obvious: the range of lenses for APS-C cameras of these manufacturers exceeds the offerings of Nikon and Canon for their cropped cameras. Moreover, mirrorless cameras have an advantage not only in quantity, but also in quality! At one time, neither Nikon nor Canon managed to create truly attractive non-full-frame lenses, concentrating most of their efforts on creating full-frame lenses, and at present, I believe, these manufacturers have already missed the moment to catch up. Mirrorless cameras in this area have an undeniable advantage. Why would you buy a , when for the same money you can get a Sony A6000 - a more compact and innovative camera? And that's just the beginning - newer mirrorless cameras like the Sony A6300 are capable of leading the way in autofocus performance and reliability, and DSLRs likely won't be able to compete in this area.

      Although Nikon has done a phenomenal job, this camera will only be of interest to a certain niche of sports and wildlife photographers - there are few users willing to shell out about $ 2 thousand for a cropped DSLR capable of shooting at 10 frames per second. when for the same (or even less) money you can buy a full-frame SLR or mirrorless camera.

      DSLR or mirrorless? Difficulties in moving from one system to another

      Looking at the sales data over the past few years, we see a rather confusing picture - if the future belongs to mirrorless cameras, then why do DSLRs still dominate the global sales charts? In my opinion, there are several reasons for this.

      First, it takes some time for a potential buyer to realize that “more is not always better”. The term "mirrorless" is new enough to the consumer's ear, and its benefits still need to be told.

      Secondly, people tend to avoid changing the system because of the investment in the existing one. If users already have a number of lenses and accessories, they avoid the hassle of selling the hardware of one system and acquiring another. After all, this is a rather expensive process, both in terms of finances (selling used photographic equipment, especially cameras and accessories, as a rule, does not provide enough money to reinvest in an equivalent system from another manufacturer), and the time required to master and adapt to new tool.

      And finally, before taking such a step, photographers often evaluate a new system as a whole and carefully analyze all the pros and cons that come with acquiring it. This reveals the biggest drawback of mirrorless systems at the moment: they cannot offer users the same number of tools, accessories and lenses as DSLRs. And this is what keeps many professionals and amateurs from such a transition.

      The user of a SLR camera is free to choose from a wide variety of photography genres. You can start with portrait photography, then move on to landscape photography, architecture photography, etc. There are lenses for almost any genre. The same goes for accessories - a photographer has a much better chance of finding flashes, triggers and other photo accessories for a DSLR than for a mirrorless camera, simply because the former have been in production for much longer and have become widely accepted as the gold standard among photographers. Because of these advantages of mirrorless systems, many photographers are quite cautious about switching to mirrorless cameras.

      But things are changing pretty quickly. If a couple of years ago the choice of lenses for mirrorless cameras was quite poor, today you can find lenses for them that meet many photography needs. Of course, DSLRs still have a fast lens advantage, but with the current trend, it will fade away very quickly.

      DSLR vs Mirrorless Camera Comparison: Autofocus Performance

      If a couple of years ago, raising this issue, one could laugh at the deplorable state of affairs with autofocus in mirrorless cameras, then at present the situation is changing radically. Unless DSLR manufacturers find ways to convert the optical analog output to digital for analysis, then mirrorless cameras will very soon surpass DSLRs in autofocus performance, especially in accuracy. Why? Everything is very simple: on a SLR, analysis of data received directly from the camera matrix is ​​impossible, since this is prevented by a mirror and a closed shutter located in front of the matrix. Autofocus is done using an autofocus module that receives a light/analogue image from a secondary mirror. In comparison, in mirrorless cameras, information can be scanned and analyzed directly from the sensor before shooting. Modern mirrorless cameras are equipped with phase detection sensors built directly into the camera matrix. We have already seen how effective face detection can be on mirrorless cameras, and if manufacturers continue to improve their products in this direction, soon enough every image captured will be ringingly sharp, and the camera will automatically focus on the eyes of the person closest to you. Some cameras are already capable of capturing images before the shutter is released to avoid shooting a model with their eyes closed, and we are already accustomed to cameras that automatically take a picture as soon as the person in the frame smiles. On a DSLR, you will not be able to implement such functions until the light continuously falls on the camera matrix. Although, thanks to advanced analysis of the scene being shot, the tracking system for moving objects is getting better, and cameras are potentially able to predict the direction of the movement of an object.

      Do you want a clear example of the successful development of mirrorless autofocus? Take a look at the autofocus capabilities of the latest Sony A6300:

      With 425 focus points, the A6300 is able to analyze a large amount of information, enough to accurately focus and track a moving subject. While this technology has yet to be featured on other more advanced and expensive mirrorless cameras, the Sony A6300 can be seen as a "benchmark" for what we'll see in the future. With the right level of development, this technology will allow mirrorless cameras to quickly take the lead from DSLR cameras. It's only a matter of time before Sony's next full-frame mirrorless cameras see this amazing autofocus system.

      DSLR vs Mirrorless Camera Comparison: Battery Capacity

      Most mirrorless camera makers have gone off the rails trying to make their products smaller and lighter. For this reason, companies such as Sony have been forced to develop lightweight rechargeable batteries, which, unfortunately, do not have enough capacity to shoot more than a few hundred shots. To create real competition for DSLR cameras, mirrorless manufacturers need to start offering cameras with larger batteries. Until we see any real advances in battery technology or lower power consumption, the best thing manufacturers can do is increase battery capacity. If the battery capacity of mirrorless cameras is increased by at least 2 times, they will become much more attractive to photographers currently using SLR cameras. And if the price for this is some increase in the dimensions of the camera, then so be it - all the same, many users of SLR cameras complain that mirrorless cameras are too small for their hands.

      If Nikon and Canon are too slow, they could repeat the fate of Kodak

      DSLR Weaknesses: Lack of Innovation

      If we compare DSLRs with mirrorless cameras in terms of the use of technological advances, it becomes clear that DSLRs no longer use as much innovation as they used to. The user might get better resolution, faster continuous shooting, more video recording options, better autofocus modules, and possibly more built-in modules like Wi-Fi and GPS, but it's not enough to really get the younger generation interested. photographers. Mirrorless cameras will continue to excite users with their functionality, as their possibilities are truly endless. What is worth only one ability of the camera to continuously record an image, adjusting the exposure in different parts of the scene, and then combine this information into one RAW file! Goodbye overexposure and littered shadows!

      Conclusion: Are the days of DSLRs numbered?

      While mirrorless cameras are taking over the market, there are some issues that mirrorless manufacturers still need to address before I can recommend switching from a DSLR to a mirrorless camera. Longer battery life, a more reliable autofocus system (particularly for capturing fast and unpredictable movements), a larger buffer, an expanded range of lenses (especially super telephoto lenses), an improved electronic viewfinder, equipping cameras with built-in Wi-Fi + GPS modules and improved ergonomics - that's areas where I think mirrorless camera manufacturers need to improve their products. As you can see, there are many tasks, but manufacturers cope with them quickly enough. In the coming years, we will have to see mirrorless cameras that can successfully compete with DSLR cameras in every way.

      But despite this, I do not believe that the days of DSLRs are already numbered. If Nikon and Canon don't get into the mirrorless game now, they may suffer even more significant setbacks later. Today, DSLRs may outsell mirrorless cameras, but that will change—it's just a matter of time. Although Canon and Nikon have mirrorless systems, neither the EOS M nor the CX are currently able to compete with other manufacturers in this segment.

      I do not think that Nikon and Canon should continue to develop mirrorless cameras with a unique type of mount. At present, such a strategy would be a mistake, as it entails the development of a complete line of lenses for the new mount. Instead, in my opinion, these giants should develop mirrorless cameras with a bayonet mount, like DSLR cameras. If Nikon and Canon can gain a foothold in the mirrorless market, and dedicate more time and money to building quality mirrorless cameras, then they will be able to retain their existing customers as well as their market dominance. But if they are too slow, they may repeat the fate of Kodak.

      More useful information and news in our Telegram channel"Lessons and Secrets of Photography". Subscribe!

        Similar posts

        Discussion: 12 comments

        Great article! Thanks for the detailed review and comparison. I myself have long since left the SLR camera. And recently I heard about the mirrorless Sony, but did not attach any importance to this. Now I will be more attentive to follow the news on this topic.

        Answer

        1. Alexey, thanks for the feedback. If it's not a secret, what did you change the DSLR to?

          Answer

          1. Hello!

            At one time, I decided to completely abandon photography and bought a Canon PowerShot SX150 IS digital soap dish. So to say, to shoot simply for the memory of the place and event. But a little later I decided to take something better, and bought a Canon SX40 HS ultrazoom for testing. In principle, I shoot and am satisfied.

            I'm an amateur photographer and I'm not going to miss the stars from the sky ☺. Although to be honest, the thought of purchasing a DSLR often visits me. Who knows, maybe when I will buy it.

            You can see some of my photos on my blog. They were filmed with different cameras. I would love to hear your comments about them. The opinion of experienced people is always interesting for me ☺.

            All the best.

            Answer

        A good article, more or less intelligible compared to most written compared DSLRs with mirrorless ones.
        Disagree with a few things:
        Hybrid autofocus, in my opinion, is in no way inferior to mirror cameras - I compared my Sony a6000 with the Canon 650D and Canon 5D Mark2 - Sony's unequivocal victory in tenacity, because kenons quite often smear ceteris paribus. Autofocus speed is about the same, but Sony is definitely not slower (0.06s is stated).
        As for a camera that shoots at 10 fps and costs 2 grand bucks, the Sony a6000 shoots 11 fps in RAW with every frame in focus. I checked it myself - I shot my daughter running at me, out of 22 shots, 4 pieces were out of focus. I think it's just a great result. The cost of the camera is 600-700 Baku rubles.
        It remains for manufacturers to solve the problem with the fleet of fast lenses, which, by the way, is already being done. In this regard, on Sony full-frame mirrorless cameras, the autofocus of Kenon lenses works fine through an adapter - like native ones. Unfortunately, they don’t work on crop, but I think adapter manufacturers will solve this problem.

      Thanks for the very informative articles. At one time, I struggled with the choice between a DSLR and a Sony a77. I chose a more innovative solution. After 5 years of honest work, the a77 is so used to its functionality and convenience that I have been looking at the adherents of the holy mirror with a smile for a long time. Knowing that a good photo is taken by a photographer, not a camera, I only appreciate the convenience of the tool for work. To see the result even before the descent, use the (online) histogram, level, picking, control all the necessary parameters on the screen - such "plus" features are not available to DSLRs. Not to mention, the "nailed" screen, which has only recently begun to change. Cons a77, work at high ISO. I forgot what it is to shoot through the viewfinder, I shoot on the screen (like on a soap dish) with peripheral vision holding the whole process. Having a fleet of good Minolta and Zeiss optics, I waited a long time for the reincarnation of the A99, but alas ... I bought the A7m2 and have no regrets. Every top third-party lens is now available, including great rarities. There is only one drawback, the low capacity of the batteries, which is treated by buying cheap spare analogues. My purely personal opinion, the future belongs to mirrorless technologies and it has already arrived. Motorists-Schumachers on the "handle" look with disdain at the owners of the "machine". It's funny to watch these "athletes" in city traffic. The main thing is to get there in a quality, comfortable and fast way, in the sense that the photographic result is good.

      Answer

      Mirrorless cameras cannot be used for unpredictable shooting. The battery will run out in a day, even if you do not remove it at all. The start time for a mirrorless camera is 5-30 times slower than for a DSLR.

      For a DSLR, you can make a faster large heavy zoom lens, for example 24-70 f1.4. Install a more powerful battery.

      Answer

      And I have such a purely electronic-technical question.
      In a DSLR, the matrix rests until we take a photo; in a mirrorless camera, it is constantly at work.
      As you know, any electronic device heats up during operation, and the higher the operating frequency (the scanning frequency of the matrix, the higher its physical resolution), the greater the heating. Heating greatly affects the parameters of semiconductor devices. I will not go into the physics of the processes, I will only note that from the point of view of the quality of the final photograph, this can lead to an increase in the noise level even at moderate ISO. I would like to know opinions on this matter. You don’t need it with crooked hands, neither one nor the other ... 7P2 7C2 quite proved their superiority of mirrorless systems over mirror ones ... and already 9 came out and turned out technically successfully. The question of price was not discussed here ...

      Answer

      During the recent stream "Algorithms for choosing photographic equipment", dedicated, as the name implies, to the peculiarities of choosing cameras and lenses, I raised the topic "DSLRs vs mirrorless". Well, I picked it up and raised it, just like a step in the very algorithm for choosing photographic equipment ... To be honest, I thought that we would skip this topic quite quickly, because it has already been discussed up and down, from all sides, so to speak. Ah, it wasn't there! It turns out that among photographers there are still a lot of prejudices against mirrorless cameras! A rather heated discussion ensued, as a result of which I decided to write this post in order to try to dot the "e" already in writing. For clarity, I decided to issue a post in the form of questions and answers or in the form of replicas and comments to them. Almost all questions or comments are real, those that sounded either during the stream itself, or after, in the discussion.

      "There are a lot of photographers who fell for the marketing gimmicks of manufacturers and their sweet promotional promises, switched to mirrorless. And then they quickly returned to their SLR cameras."
      It is possible, of course, that this happened to someone. But there is a nuance here. It often seems to us that if something happens in our environment in a certain way, then everything is exactly the same everywhere. However, this is an illusion. Several acquaintances who have returned back to DSLRs are not an indicator. Moreover, I can make a similar counterargument - so many of my professional photographers I know are switching to mirrorless cameras indiscriminately.

      Moreover, global sales statistics show that for many years now there has been a decline in sales of mirror systems and the rise of mirrorless ones. The approximation of these two graphs suggests that parity will come literally next year, and further mirrorless cameras in the world will be sold more than DSLRs.

      Indeed, already now, as a photographer, I see no reason why I should advise buying an entry-level DSLR with the first camera. In all respects, except, perhaps, prices, these cameras are inferior to the initial mirrorless ones. That is, SLR cameras still hold the lead in the top segment when shooting a report. Yes and that…. For landscape photography, for object photography, for interior photography, architectural, studio work, for portraits, and for many other relatively calm types of shooting - a mirror is no longer needed even in the top segment, that's a fact. Not only that, it's just superfluous! SLR systems do not allow you to constantly control the depth of field, which is very important in subject and portrait photography, they will not show the finished colors, contrasts and brightness before pressing the shutter button, which is useful in landscape and architectural photography, and so on and so forth.

      "But mirrorless cameras are slower!"
      Actually, it's never like that. For example, I just shot with a mirrorless medium format camera on the street, handheld, footage of a car with wiring. If someone told me a couple of years ago that I would shoot 3 50MP frames per second with AF tracking on a mirrorless medium format to the dynamics of a passing car, then I would just laugh in his face! No, really! Even if the mirrorless medium format is fast, what can we say about more compact systems?! ..

      For example, the FUJIFILM X-T2 feels like a very lively camera in the hands, and the Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk2 is super fast! And it's not even about how many frames per second this or that camera can shoot (although the same E-M1 mk2 is generally out of reach in this parameter - up to 60 20MP RAW per second!), But how it feels in operation - delays when pressing the shutter, during the operation of AF systems for mirrorless cameras are minimized and practically shooting feels exactly the same as for SLR cameras. So it's not like that, not braked already.

      "Mirrorless cameras have very slow autofocus!"
      There is a lot to be said for AF. Previously, he really was the same Achilles' heel. But now mirrorless autofocus is no longer slow. What is frame-by-frame, what is tracking - everything is already at the level of good professional DSLRs, albeit not top-end ones, but still.

      Moreover, contrast (or, which is more common now - hybrid AF) is much more accurate than the phase autofocus of DSLRs: here you have neither back focus nor front focus! In backlight, it works more stable than phase detection. In the dark, contrast AF works better than phase-detection AF. The focus area can be of any size, even very tiny, even half a screen. The focus point can be anywhere, even in the very corner of the frame. This point can be easily associated with exposure metering (which is available only on top-end DSLRs). The focus point can always be instantly zoomed in for finer control of focus. You can use focus peaking, and with a little training, you can focus with manual glasses at the same speed as autofocus lenses. Determination of faces, eyes, tracking of objects, all this on contrast AF is implemented much easier and with great potential.

      "And the digital viewfinder is a minus!"
      Vice versa! The electronic viewfinder (EVF) is a huge plus! If it gets dark outside, what do you do with the optical viewfinder (OVF)? That's right, stop shooting and go home, because nothing can be seen through this peephole at all, especially if the optics are not fast. And EVI shows everything! At the very least, noisy, but it shows! At dusk and in the dark, it works as a night vision device, shooting is much more comfortable, the scene is better visible.

      At the same time, EVI immediately produces a picture such as you will receive later, you do not need to calculate b/w, for example, or the colors of the final frame in your mind. You can immediately see the depth of field, which, by the way, you can’t see at all on DSLRs, and which terribly interferes with product photography. Yes, here in the comments they remember about DOF-Preview for DSLRs ... Well, imagine that you are shooting an object with f / 11 and a slow shutter speed, what will you see on the DSLR? A beautiful dark rectangle instead of a frame. Further, in EVI, you can display a histogram for yourself, you can see focus peaking, you can instantly, at the touch of a button, zoom in on the image for more careful aiming, you can view the footage in EVI if the sun is blinding or it is drizzling.

      At the same time, the EVI on top mirrorless cameras like the same FUJIFILM X-T2 or on the Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk2 is almost the same in size as on the Canon EOS 1Dx! After these JVI viewfinders, entry-level and mid-level DSLRs are like a small peephole. Even JVI "penny" does not look particularly cool after good EVI.

      "If you can't see something in the viewfinder on the DSLR, turn on the live view."
      It's totally funny! =:) No, really! Buy a big DSLR to use as a mirrorless camera! At the same time, in live view, the speed of even 5Dm3 immediately becomes like that of an inexpensive mirrorless camera five years ago ... Neither you need tracking AF, nor you focus peaking, nor you any of the above benefits ... And the screen does not even rotate on 5Dm4! Why do you need such a crutch?! To somehow be like a mirrorless?! .. =:)

      "On my 5Dm3, I only used live view when I was filming from the floor, so as not to lie down. And then only to frame the frame. And I shot with the mirror already lowered."
      Well, listen, this is all reminiscent of talking about phones when mobile phones first appeared! Everyone said that mobile phones, they say, are expensive, inconvenient and the quality of communication is poor, but you can always call from home or, in extreme cases, from a taxi machine, you can hear it better, and much cheaper! =:)

      There are obvious advantages of mirrorless systems, a lot has already been said about them here. They, perhaps, are clear to everyone who shoots a lot. I will not argue that all problems can be solved with SLR cameras, just like before all problems were solved with film technology. But the figure came and where is the film now? Although in the beginning, too, many people said the same things. It’s just that someone has already built their workflow and doesn’t want to change it, everything suits them. Let it be difficult, let it be ridiculous in places, as in your case about life view, but everything is already known, why change it? I understand this, sometimes I myself ...

      "The Canon 5D Mark IV now has a touch screen, by the way."
      Wow, cool!!! Not even five years have passed since such screens appeared on mirrorless cameras, when finally this technology reached the top Canon model (so far only up to the “five”, the “one” still cannot boast of this)! You look, in another 5 years the screen will be folding or turning! =:) If Canon is not in Bose by that time, of course ...

      "About the possible death of Nikon or Canon is generally ridiculous!"
      Funny or not about Canon or Nikon - time will tell. In the meantime, I recommend that you look at the financial statements of these companies and the trends of market movements, there may be food for thought. At one time, no one believed in the inglorious end of the era of Nokia's dominance in the phone market either ... And what do we see now?

      “Mirrorless cameras have enough battery life for 300 shots!
      I suppose that the number 300 here came from a rude joke about "tractor drivers" =:) My experience says that I don't shoot less than 800 frames on one battery, even if the camera is not turned off at all. My colleague Stanislav Vasiliev On one charge of his Olympus, he shoots 1500 frames or more, if my memory serves me right. Many mirrorless photographers claim that the batteries are enough for a day of shooting. But even if not, then taking an extra battery and / or portable charger is not a problem at all, they are now very compact.

      In fact, manufacturers have a measurement technique, and that's how it turns out 300-400 frames, they indicate this data in the characteristics of the cameras. In real life, one battery allows you to shoot a lot more. So it's not a problem at all.

      "It's very inconvenient to use mirrorless cameras in studio shooting!"
      Why?!.. Where does this belief come from?!.. I shoot a lot with mirrorless cameras in the studio. Personally, I find it much more convenient to shoot there. He brought the picture to the screen - and it becomes much easier to control and build a frame. It is not for nothing that photographers in the studio usually shoot "into a computer" (the camera is connected by a cord or via Wi-Fi to a computer and the image can be immediately viewed on the monitor screen, in high resolution). In general, purely psychologically, building an image on the screen is much easier than through the viewfinder shaft. I’m not talking about lower angles, which are not uncommon in the studio and when shooting which a photographer with a DSLR will have to spend many hours either squatting, or kneeling or sitting on the floor.

      If here we are talking about the fact that when setting the typical parameters of studio shooting with impulse devices (closed aperture, low ISO, which shutter speed) nothing is visible on mirrorless cameras, then, in fact, this is an option and it can be turned off. Then the screen will be like with a DSLR - everything is bright, even with such aperture-shutter-ISO settings.

      "Moreover, mirrorless mirrors are useless in a reportage!"
      How many reports I filmed - I did not experience any problems. Well, perhaps, sometimes there are moments of especially rapid development of situations where top-end DSLRs really rule, I agree. But in a relatively calm reportage, everything is fine with mirrorless cameras. Moreover, the ability to shoot handheld on a folding screen from an upper or lower angle has always aroused the envy of photocrorrs shooting nearby on SLRs.

      "Roughly speaking, at this stage of development, a mirrorless camera is a camera for shooting cats, for a home photo shoot or for a travel photo where masterpieces are not needed ..."
      Well, the professionals who are now switching to mirrorless do not agree with you. They shoot weddings, they shoot in the studio, they shoot videos - in general, now there is a massive transition of videographers to Sony A7 * or to mirrorless cameras from Panasonic ... I have already talked about interiors, about nature too, I am generally silent about the subject - here the mirror only gets in the way, this is already clear to everyone.

      It’s not entirely clear to me how, well, let’s say, the Sony A7R II camera, which has exactly the same matrix as in the Nikon D810A, to which you can fasten good Zeiss optics or through the Metabones adapter the same lenses from Nikon, like this camera take, for example, a landscape worse than a D810A DSLR ?! What should happen, well, except, perhaps, crooked handles, so that the frame on the mirrorless camera turns out to be bad? I don’t understand… But, for example, mirror shock (camera shake from a triggered mirror lifting mechanism) - I understand this very well and I know that this often leads to micro-blurring, which is immediately very noticeable in a picture with 36.6MP. Here everything is very clear.

      “You talk a lot about the compactness of mirrorless systems. But if you take several lenses with you, then, as it were, the size of the camera is no longer very important here. The weight of the lenses itself is sufficient here.
      If we talk about mirrorless cameras, then the constructive ability to "move" the lens closer to the matrix due to the lack of a mirror allows you to make the optics themselves much more compact and, as a result, lighter. On mirrorless cameras, a similar set of lenses will, as a rule, be one and a half to two times lighter than similar lenses for DSLRs. All this at exactly the same quality, or even better, because the optics of mirrorless cameras were developed immediately for new matrices, and not for film or for old sensors, as was the case with most lenses in SLR systems. Yes, and the cost of a similar set will most likely be cheaper. And if you stop well, for example, on crop 1.5, then even more so! And the wallet, back and neck will thank you very much, believe me! =:)

      "Regarding the size of the matrix ... The larger the matrix, the better (this is the law of optics). This is a word about crop."
      Agree. That's right. But if you approach from the side of the customer, then many of them are not interested in our problems and difficulties at all, it is important for them - will they then have a good picture or not? And if people often cannot distinguish at all what is shot on FF and what is on 1.5-crop, then we, photographers, in fact, can carry less weights.

      This, by the way, does not mean that customers are fools and without exception do not see the difference between full frame and crop. This means that the camera has not only a matrix, there is also optics (which contributes even more to the quality of the photo than the matrix, by the way), there is also electronics. Taken together, it turns out that good optics + a new matrix + advanced signal processing often give better quality on 1.5-crop than the old matrix + film optics + old signal processing algorithms on many full frames.

      "The convenience and ergonomics of DSLRs is better!"
      I totally disagree with this! From year to year, from model to model, DSLRs bring with them all ergonomic miscalculations... uh-uh... peculiarities, starting with the first cameras of this class. Nikon still requires you to press a button and turn a wheel at the same time to change many settings. Oh yes! Of course, you can easily get used to this, because this is protection against accidental turning of the wheels, yes, yes ... I have no doubt that it is very necessary in reportage shooting, when the camera hangs either on the stomach, or on the side, or somewhere in backpack or trunk. But not everyone needs it, not all reportage photographers, alas or ah. And for me personally, this "press-hold-twist" is wildly inconvenient. For lovers of Canon ergonomics, I always ask, well, for example, to change the ISO blindly without looking up from the viewfinder. Even long-time fans of "pyataks" perform this "exercise" once out of five attempts, not to mention the owners of younger models. =:) The ergonomics of DSLRs are traditionally BAD. It is designed more for octopuses than for people.

      But it's not even that she's bad. It's not so bad... The worse thing is that she hasn't changed for years. Yes, mirrorless cameras are not always convenient, some things are not obvious with them, some are frankly bad, I agree. But engineers are constantly experimenting, trying new ergonomic solutions, trying to fit ALL controls on a compact body, and even now it is much more convenient to control all the controls than with those offered by DSLR designers from year to year. So I do not agree with you that "the DSLR in the hand" lies "better and more convenient."

      “This is not only my opinion or my friends, but also, for example, Alexei Dovgul.
      Excuse me, but in this matter, the opinion of Alexei Dovgul does not seem to me to be any important, with all due respect to him as a photographer and as a colleague. Of course, he can express any opinion, this is not even questioned. But I gave my arguments and they look much more convincing to me than the opinion of one good photographer, sorry.

      UPD! I'll add a comment from Alexei himself:

      "Ho-ho-ho!!! :)))) ahhh mirrorless cameras are coming!!! Since I've already mentioned, I have the right to speak out. I won't get into an argument, I'll just say that I'm not against mirrorless cameras for amateurs and some categories professionals. But so far, most mirrorless cameras are useless for me. I have an established style of work on reportage shooting for years, and this is 50% of my work. I work with two cameras and almost never hold the camera with both hands, so a wide grip of the camera is important for size is bad for me.I have 2 programmable shooting modes on one camera and 3 modes on another, and I use all of them in reporting and change with one finger.As for the viewfinder, it seems to me a matter of habit, but an attempt to shoot beauty on a mirrorless camera for I ended up in failure - slowly, maybe this issue was resolved on the top ones. About the aggressive reporting, I’m even afraid to think to be honest. I work a lot with two flashes, but not every manufacturer makes good flashes and synchronization tools for them, only Sony will probably help here. The list of little things goes on, this is the first pain I face. But on a tourist trip, I will definitely choose a mirrorless camera. And even when my friends ask me which DSLR to buy, if I see that a person is not a pro and is not going to be one, I send it towards Sony Oli Fuji. So the opinion that I am against mirrorless cameras is false, perhaps it has developed under the influence of my particular pain. My result: the destiny of an amateur and a pro of unhurried shooting with rarely changing conditions is a mirrorless camera, my destiny is a large SLR. But that's for now. I completely agree that over time the mirror will go away. By the way, I would be grateful if someone would give me a couple of mirrorless cameras with fast lenses from 17 to 200mm and a couple of flashes for a full-fledged test for shooting a wedding, then I can constructively fend off Anton's arguments or vice versa :))))))"

      "This post is paid, it's all jeans!!!1"
      Dooooo!.. Of course! And in general, Churchill came up with all this in the 18th year! =:)

      But seriously, this post is written simply on the basis of common sense and real facts. I'm having a hard time understanding how it can't be obvious? =:)