Comment by _ph_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _ph_ | Hacker News Reader

In my eyes, over the decades both companies kept leapfrogging over each other. With the T90, Canon probably made the most advanced non-AF SLR, only to abandon the FD-mount. This was a very costy change, which paid of later on, as it allowed Canon to start over without any legacy. Early on, Nikon had the lead in DSLRs, but Canon was the first with a 35mm DSLR. Nikon took a long time to go 35mm, but the D800 and D810 was a big step ahead with its 36mp sensor, only very recently Canon exceeded that with ther 50mp version of the 5D.

The next important step for both companies will be the transition to mirrorless technology. As µFT and the Sony A7/A9 are showing, mirrorless is the next step in camera technology. It will be interesting to watch how Canon and Nikon approach this transition. As both companies currently make their money with SLRs, it is a risky step, but an inevitable one. If one of them missteps in that transition, it means at least a big set back if not a complete loss of their role in the camera market.

Yeah, Sony is proving to be dangerous. Awesome sensor tech, and lenses that can compete with the high-end of Canon/Nikon's ranges (and Tamron is getting there too), at a point where lens quality really matters if you want to be able to use the pixel density.

> at a point where lens quality really matters if you want to be able to use the pixel density.

And this can only become a bigger issue since resolution increases while sensor size shrinks or stays the same. It is an old truism that you should care more about the quality of your lenses than your camera body, and that hasn't really changed.

> you should care more about the quality of your lenses than your camera body

The only problem is low light. My 600D takes fine photos in sunlight or with a flash, but otherwise the sensor noise is awful.

That's why you get lenses with wider apertures. They also generally have the advantage of focusing faster and having better subject separation.

In my experience, wider aperture often means slower focusing. The focus motor has to move a much larger piece of glass and focus with an even narrower depth of field.

That's usually the opposite case, wider apertures mean more light which gives the AF system more to work with. The AF speed of my 135L drops significantly if I put a 1.4x teleconverter on it despite needing to move the same amount of glass.

Most wide-aperture lenses have larger AF motors to compensate with the exception of a few unique lenses that use a gear instead of servo motor(USM in canon parlance).

Wider aperture means bigger lens, especially zoom. This can be a negative for the non-professional who wants to minimize size/weight when travelling or just walking around town, especially if they already have a smaller, mirrorless body. Professionals, obviously, will use whatever size equipment they need to get the job done.

All the more reason to move to primes ;).

Seriously though, the comment about focusing on lenses instead of bodies is spot-on. Photography is the art of manipulating light, be that via off-camera flash, better lenses or picking the right time of day.

Getting a fancier camera body only lets you pick up the electrons that are already there, you'll see much larger improvements in your photo quality if you focus on the other things first.

That only works when you want subject separation though.

Fuji is in there as well, they have several mirrorless models and their optics are top-notch.

Yep. Fujifilm have a long history of excellent lenses. I believe they used to make lenses for Hasselblad.

-They make lenses for the H system (oh, and XPan - in that case, I believe they made the camera, too). The V system (what pops into most people’s minds when ‘Hasselblad’ is mentioned) was largely supplied with Carl Zeiss lenses.

For those of us who are only half paying attention, why is mirrorless an inevitable step?

I would have said that the advantage in sensor size of 35mm DSLRs would give them a long-lasting advantage over anything with a smaller sensor, even with advances in that technology.

DSLR/Mirrorless is unrelated to sensor size. Sony makes 35mm mirrorless cameras with great sensors, just like more or less everyone making DSLRs also makes some with sensors smaller than 35mm size.

And lets not forget the Hasselblad and Fuji medium format (cropped "645" at 50MP for the current models) mirrorless cameras either.

It gets rid of the flipping mirror.

As in most hardware devices, less moving mechanical parts is an advantage. Sensor size is unrelated these days.

Two very comparable cameras with the same sized sensor: http://camerasize.com/compare/#724,718

Sony's mirrorless camera is also more compact than SLR cameras with smaller (APS-C) sensors: http://camerasize.com/compare/#724,708

They're also quieter (no mirror slap) and having an electronic viewfinder allows you to see what will be recorded. For example, you can directly see the effect of a longer exposure or higher sensitivity.

Their batteries last significantly less and the lenses tend to be bulkier than equivalent DSLR lenses. This takes away most of the advantages.

Video is superior on mirrorless though.

That's not because of the cameras being mirrorless; it's because (for Canon anyway) they purposely gimp video on their DSLRs to get you to buy their Cine-EOS cameras.

Which is why all the kids these days are using Magic Lantern and unlocking the actual potential of DSLRs by shooting uncompressed 14-bit "raw" video.

Not working though is it? Mirrorless are making huge strides in video

Strides which do not result from them being mirrorless. You should understand that the mirror does not get involved at all when doing video with a DSLR. So, all of these 'strides' can and have been replicated in the next version of the cameras.

I'm not sure what your point is - it's mirrorless that have really pushed the tech on here at least at the cheaper end of the market. It's my understanding that Lumix G range for example has been widely adopted for video in a way that SLR has not. Are you saying these users will defect to SLR with a new generation? Can't really see why, since all that going SLR would do is introduce some extra mechanics they don't need.

Many people don't like electronic viewfinders either. They've gotten better, but it's not quite the same, at least not yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com