Hacker News Reader

Comment by sigi45 | Hacker News Reader

DSLRs are quicker, sharper and have much better low light performance.

Smartphones make great pictures for normal people and its great but they don't have anything to do with a DSLR.

Consumer are using Smartphones. Consumers like my mother, who do not use smartphones daily and prefer pictures over smart, use compacts when taking pictures in there holidays.

Hobbieists might use a Mirror Less instead of a DSLR.

Pros will still use DSLRs.

I still use my Canon 60D and prefer it that way. Having a mirror instead of a display makes it faster and it uses less energy.

Leica, just forget it. Its price is for the craftmanship not for the image quality. Ifyou have nothing better to buy, of course but don't do it for the image quality. it is very good but not worth the price.

View on HN

> Hobbieists might use a Mirror Less instead of a DSLR.

> Pros will still use DSLRs.

I imagine Kodak said something like this in the 90's: "Hobbyists might use digital cameras, but pros will still use film."

Your view is shortsighted. Mirrorless cameras don't beat DSLRs yet, but they're improving fast. Eventually they will be better, and DSLRs will go the way of film: a niche for a few devotees, but not used even by most professionals. The greater reliability afforded by having no moving parts guarantees it.

DSLR has much, much better battery life. The mirror also offers a degree of protection from dust for your shutter and sensor. There are less electronics that can break. These factors will guarantee DSLR usage by pros for the next 5-10 years at least.

Mirrors rarely (read: never) break through normal usage; the main advantage of mirrorless is not having to accommodate the mirror box which means cameras can be smaller.

None of that has anything to do with being a DSLR though.

Want to increase battery life? Build a bigger battery. Want to protect the sensor? Build a mechanism to cover it when changing lenses.

Is there actually a technical reason you can't make a mirrorless as good as a DSLR?

'Good' is subjective as in 'Good for what?'

There are tradeoffs that a DSLR makes to provide a through the lens optical viewfinder and phase detection autofocus. Mechanical complexity of a moving mirror and the bulk of a pentaprism in addition to the mirror bulk are among them. For some applications and some people the tradeoff is worth it for others it isn't.

If smaller size and lighter weight are more important then a mirrorless is more likely to be better.

Yep. I have both a FF DSLR and a APS-C mirrorless. I use both. I like both. Which I use for a given application depends on what my priorities are.

Bigger battery = The main weight of a DSLR body is already the battery. They can't go the Apple route of filling every possible space in the case with battery either because it needs to be replacacle.

If the reason for getting rid of the mirror is mechanical reliability I don't think it's a good idea to add something else that can break.

There isn't a technical reason, but rather which trade offs do you want to make? You can make a mirrorless camera that has every feature of an DSLR, but there is no point to do that if you lose the advantages of a mirrorless system (small and light).

The battery issue is not that simple. Mirrorless cameras need to keep the sensor active and the LCD or electronic viewfinder on during framing/composition, whereas the DSLR only needs to do this for the 1/60th of a second when the photo is being taken.

bigger battery means more weight. becomes a tradeoff again.

I've had 2 DSLRs, and the first one broke a mount in the mirror in a way that it didn't flip up (automatically) any more. Took 50k images, but it did happen.

The battery on my GH4 lasts so much longer than my wife's Canon 5DMIII.

To me, everything in photography is a tradeoff.

One application where DSLR provides advantages over mirrorless cameras is photographing moving objects (e.g. sports and wildlife) because optical viewfinders and phase detection autofocus provide a faster response than an electronic viewfinder and contrast detection autofocus. In rapidly changing scenes, the difference between a great shot and 'meh' is often a fraction of a second.

Another area might be the diversity and quantity and quality of available 35mm lenses due to decades of manufacture. There's a lot of existing good glass out in the world. Likewise, film still has a role when resolution really matters because a large format negative has several times the resolving power of even the most advanced medium format digital cameras.

Consumer grade DSLR's are pretty reliable, typically rated to 50,000+ shutter activations (which don't occur when shooting live view or videos). That's more than ten shots a day for more than ten years. Over a period of several years, most people are far more likely to replace their digital camera for the sake upgrades than because the shutter broke and most people are more likely to break their camera by dropping it than by taking too many images.

That's nothing against mirrorless cameras. They have advantages for many people and since a lot of people shoot their DSLR's in program mode without making technical considerations, mirrorless cameras are a reasonable (though not necessarily less costly) alternative.

>> a lot of people shoot their DSLR's in program mode without making technical considerations

Also, a lot of consumer DSLR buyers don't buy much more than a slow superzoom or a kit lens duo (~18-50 + 70-210/300), so they're not truly benefiting from the potential of their purchase beyond the larger sensor.

Kit lenses are often not what limits the quality of images people produce.

Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

>> Kit lenses are often not what limits the quality of images people produce.

I did not say that though. I only said that they're not benefiting from the potential of their purchase.

Besides, a lot of consumers who buy DSLR kits are doing it on someone's recommendation. They aren't going to bother learning the craft of photography, and once the honeymoon period is over, they're going to get tired of carrying a bulky camera around and their whole purchase will start to collect dust.

My apologies for not understanding your intent.

Exactly. There are still a lot of good reasons to use a DSLR for some applications. But if you're using one with a crappy kit lens on Auto that you never take off, you're carrying a bigger camera than you need.

Even WRT the larger sensor, there are a bunch of much lighter and more compact mirrorless cameras that are either APS-C or micro 4-3rds.

The best mirrorless cameras have phase-detect AF built into the sensors - not yet up there with the best of DSLRs but getting there.

Also you can adapt any 35mm film DSLR lens to almost any mirrorless due to the short flange distance (between back of lens and sensor) so you can still use legacy glass.

Mirrorless cameras still have moving parts, though they don't have the viewfinder mirror.

And they won't displace SLRs until they electronic viewfinders have much higher quality, in several dimensions. I don't doubt that that will happen, but we're a long way from that.

Umm, the first digital SLRs were made by Kodak, using a Kodak designed image sensor.

I think the big difference is the viewfinder. A viewfinder with 100% coverage gives you the exact picture you are seeing. Its sharp its quick its perfect and doesn't take up energy.

A digital viewfinder gives you the picture the camera gives you. This uses lots of energy and sucks in low light performance.

Where by "sucks" you mean "reveals what the actual picture you're going to get will look like", which on modern sensors is amazingly brighter than what your eyes think they see. EVFs are the future.

They simply don't work for multi-second exposures, however.

Nope. I can underexpose a picture without playing around with the dails and without blurines or similiar things.

Not until they can shoot sports. Go to any big sporting event and you will see a sea of Canon 1DX FF bodies. For the burst fanatics, it will do 14 FPS and refocus and re-evaluate exposure each time. Lock those two and it will do 16 FPS.

I've played with mirrorless, bought one for my kid, I think they are a joke if you are shooting as a pro. I just don't see why I would want one. A phone or a point and shoot will fit in your pocket and they do a great job. If you want better results you step up to full frame. Mirrorless seems like a solution to a non-problem. To me.

Can we kill off this "Kodak died because it didn't see digital coming" meme, please?

> I imagine Kodak said something like this in the 90's: "Hobbyists might use digital cameras, but pros will still use film."

It's quite clear they were not saying this in the 90s, because Kodak was selling insanely expensive professional digital cameras for all but one year of that decade.[0]

They were ahead of their competition in adapting to the digital era. They lost because Nikon and Canon ate their lunch with vastly superior digital cameras.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS

I'm mostly a hobby shooter but shoot for/with pros at hockey tournaments.

For any sports shooting, mirrorless is a joke. Why? Because the viewfinder lags the action, you can't time a shot and get the puck going into the goal. Your only option is to shoot burst. Which sucks?

Why does burst suck? Because we're trying to take pictures to sell to the players (or more likely, the parents or SO of the players). We are expected to deliver a folder of "keepers" to the table where they are selling pictures. This is a low margin, very short half life type of deal. It's on us, as photographers, to delete all the non-keepers from the card before handing it over. All while being expected to get a keeper every 8 seconds (the actual pros can do that regularly, I average a keeper every 17 seconds in the last tournament).

My keeper rate is about 60-80%, closer to 80%, when I shoot single shot (I used to play hockey, I can time the shots pretty well). That's when I'm alert, dialed in, just shooting, not messing with the camera. That's with pro gear, used to be Canon 5DIII, now is Canon 1DX II. If I shoot burst, my keeper rate goes down to 2% (1DX bursts at 14 frames per second). It's simply not possible for me to shoot burst, delete all the ones we don't want, and get back to shooting every 8 seconds.

tl;dr: sports photographers disagree (both pro and enthusiast)

>> DSLRs are quicker, sharper and have much better low light performance.

Sharpness and low light performance have less to do with the type of camera you're using than the sensor and lens combination you have. DSLRs might still be faster than mirrorless for action, but for the average person, that speed difference probably isn't meaningful enough to justify the added bulk.

For most people, the best camera is the one you have with you, and for most people, I highly doubt that's going to be an DSLR.

The camera most people have with them most of the time also makes phone calls. By the time a person brings a second camera, mirrorless and DSLR are approximately the same bulk. The photographer has something that uses a strap and perhaps a bag.

The price point of mirrorless cameras suggest to me that a substantial part of what is driving them is manufacturer's desire to introduce new systems for consumer sale. The problem with point and shoot cameras (also mirrorless) is the lack of follow on lens sales to create the idea of investment. Mirrorless cameras and their lenses are almost certainly cheaper than DSLR's to produce due to smaller size of bodies and lenses and the mechanical simplicity and smaller average sensor size of bodies. Those savings are not reflected in retail prices.

> By the time a person brings a second camera, mirrorless and DSLR are approximately the same bulk.

Not true. I use a mirrorless APS-C camera with a prime lens, and it's small enough to carry in a case on a backpack's shoulder strap while running. A DSLR would probably require a chest harness.

>Mirrorless cameras and their lenses are almost certainly cheaper than DSLR's to produce due to smaller size of bodies and lenses and the mechanical simplicity and smaller average sensor size of bodies.

But you do have an electronic viewfinder and you're cramming things into less physical space--at the offsetting benefit of eliminating some moving mechanical and optical parts which have been optimized over decades.

I don't have the numbers but I'm unconvinced absent evidence that mirrorless cameras are so much higher margin. The fact tht they're new systems that can't piggyback on decades of development may well play a role.

Although mirrorless cameras are not necessarily higher margin (though I suspect that they are based on reduced size and complexity), they are potentially higher revenue because purchasing used lenses and accessories is a significantly attractive option than with 35mm systems. Less diversity of options, fewer total available units compared to say a Canon 300mm f2.8.

Maybe. OTOH, big glass pretty much negates any advantage of mirrorless systems so (other than the effects of buying into a new system) there's less potential for add-on sales with mirrorless. But then most people don't buy many lenses anyway.

You are mixing up the sensor size and a certain technology (SLR). While most large-sensored cameras used to be DSLRs, this is no longer the case. "Sharper" and "low light performance" are tied to the sensor and the (interchangeable) lens. Nowadays, you get mirrorless cameras up to medium format size, as for example the Hasselblad. Or, in 35mm format, the Sony a7 series offers the best sensors.

And even the quicker is not necessarily any more true. The AF systems of the top of the line Nikon and Canon cameras are still the best, but the Olympus E-M1 MkII comes close to that - and no DSLR matches its up to 60 fps at full resolution.

This. Also note that the E-M1 has phase detect auto-focus built into the sensor (I think the top Sony mirrorless do too?). This is the tech leap that will close the gap between AF speed.

I was not referencing to DSLRs vs. Mirror Less but to the authors use of smartphone camera.

I do know that DSLR and Mirror Less can/are often the same quality.

I think the Canon 50MP sensors kinda stomp on the Sony ones, do they not? I haven't used either so it's an actual question. I know the landscape people are over the moon with the 50MP sensors.

That said, Sony has been kicking butt in sensor land, enough that the Nikon D800/D810 bodies sport Sony sensors, I believe the same ones as the a7 series.

I don’t think the data supports your claim about sharper, and low-light performance. AFAIK the best low-light performance in the world is the Sony A7S, which is mirrorless. At the high end, I don’t think either of the mirrorless or SLR choices are significantly sharper than each other.

SLRs have been quicker but that advantage is diminishing fast.

However, you're right about batteries, I use a Fuji XT-1 and carry a couple of spare aftermarket batteries around in my camera bag. Which isn't a problem, I find.

Lots of pros are going mirrorless.

Mirrorless cameras have huge advantages over DSLRs, not the least of which is (often) a half stop advantage, the ability to use almost any vintage lens from any manufacturer, and far less bulk. EVFs are really good now, and unlike traditional viewfinders the image you see in the EVF is literally what you will get, coloring and all. In no way is a mechanical mirror faster by nature, quite to the contrary. I can't see DSLRs surviving for long in the pro (or any other) market. Check out the alpha 7 series, it's pretty impressive.

>> not the least of which is (often) a half stop advantage

Can you please provide a citation for this? Where is this advantage coming from? The shorter flange distance?

It's been a long time since I looked that up, but I think think it was the Pellicle mirror used in some DSLRs.

The flange distance shouldn't have any effect [I think].

A DSLT (Sony's translucent mirror cameras) != DSLR. IIRC, Canon had a pellicle based film SLR, but never in a digital model.

So basically that advantage is untrue. I thought your claim sounded fishy.

Mirrorless does not have a 1/2 stop advantage over a DSLR. When the mirror is flipped, there's nothing reducing the amount of light hitting the sensor beyond the lens. The advantage over the DSLT isn't noteworthy since very few people bought Sony Alpha DSLTs, and they're basically out of production.

That's quickly changing, Sony have now overtaken Nikon to become the number 2 seller of full frame cameras in the US. Nikon doesn't make a single full frame mirrorless camera and Sony most known for making them.

https://m.dpreview.com/news/1896381164/sony-is-now-2-in-the-...

That statistic from Sony's press release feels opportunistic and cherry picked. Nikon have only released one FF camera in that window, and it costs £5,100. Sony released several and have momentum. I think when the successors to the D810 and D750 are released Nikon will pull ahead slightly.

In the longer term, mirrorless will overtake and pull further ahead of DSLR.

Sony didn't release any FF mirrorless in that period, in fact the latest FF mirrorless was released Sept 2015. I suspect it was the US discounts at that time.

The DSLR is on its way down and mirrorless has caught up, and even is surpassing the DSLR in many ways now. There are certainly very valid reasons why professionals would want to continue using their DSLR for now, but the differences are constantly being eroded away and it is only a matter of time where you are choosing between a couple of trade-offs between the systems for professional use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com