Mirrors vs. mirrorless: and the battle continues again! Which is better mirrorless or DSLR.

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 cameras. 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! Mirror systems do not allow you to constantly control the depth of field, which is very important in the 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 work - 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 a subject at f / 11 and long exposure what do you see on the mirror? 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 of entry-level and mid-level DSLRs, it’s 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 goodies ... 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 kept saying 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 touchscreen, 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. V 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."
I 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 it 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 camera grip is important for size is bad for me.I have 2 programmable shooting modes on one camera and 3 modes on the other, 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 ended in failure for me - slowly, maybe this issue was resolved on the top ones.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, here in Probably only Sony will help. 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"
Doooo!.. 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 really existing facts. I'm having a hard time understanding how it can't be obvious? =:)

If you are a beginner amateur photographer and do not know a system camera or a reflex camera, which is better to choose. What is the difference between the representatives of these devices, which camera is better to purchase at the initial stage, then you need to familiarize yourself with the material presented in this article. Here we will look at the difference between a system camera and a SLR. What models are on the market today.

Features of SLR cameras

What are SLR cameras or SLR, as it is customary to call devices of this type among professional photographers, how do they differ from ordinary cameras for photography? SLRs are devices whose optical viewfinder design uses a mirror located at an angle of 45 degrees to the lens axis. All representatives of this type of cameras are equipped with interchangeable optical equipment, which can be changed depending on the conditions and characteristics of the shooting. As a rule, devices of this type are quite impressive in size for a camera due to the design features.

An overview of the main advantages of SLR cameras:

Viewfinder. Since the viewfinder in such devices is optical, it allows you to see the raw image in real time without delay.
Fast autofocus.
Great opportunities for connecting removable optics for different conditions shooting.
The best image quality.
Cameras instantly turn on, which allows you to immediately start shooting, without waiting for the device to “wake up”.
High shooting speed.
Long battery life. So, some models are capable of producing up to three thousand frames using one battery charge.
The flash is built into the body of the device.
Simplicity, speed of setup. Typically, the DSLR body is designed in such a way that the user can easily configure the device functions using the buttons or wheels located on the device body.

The main disadvantages of this type of camera include:

Large dimensions of the device.
The weight of the device, which can sometimes reach two kilograms when assembled.
They are quite inconvenient for transportation, because due to the large dimensions of both the devices themselves and the removable parts, they require a large carrying bag that can withstand a weight of up to 15 kg.
These devices are quite fragile and require especially careful handling.
A good device of this type has a high cost.

Nikon D3300 series. Compact viewfinder mirror camera with electronic guidance for beginners. The device is equipped with a powerful digital matrix, which allows you to shoot in the dark;
Sony model Alpha 68. This device is characterized by fast focusing, good sensor, user-friendly interface;
Canon EOS series Rebel T5 or 1200D. budget model a mirrorless camera that allows continuous shooting at three frames per second. Has a powerful processor;
Nikon D5500. The device is one of the amateur SLR cameras. It is equipped with a wide list of blanks, of which there are about 16 for various subjects. Their list includes such as landscape, sports, child, macro, beach, dusk, snow, dawn.

System cameras and their main characteristics

System cameras for still photography are cameras that have a modular design. With this design, interchangeable components of the device, such as lenses, cassettes, viewfinders, flash, are installed on the body of the device. System cameras can be both SLR and mirrorless.

Let's review the characteristics of mirrorless system devices. The structure of the viewfinders of this type of device does not use a mirror, since the viewfinders themselves are electronic.

The advantages of such devices include:

small dimensions. This type of camera has a compact size and low weight due to the design features;
equipping cameras with various configuration tools, built-in functions that expand the capabilities of these devices;
electronic viewfinder in the form of a small screen that allows quick, easy adjustment.

Disadvantages of mirrorless cameras:

the speed of turning on and starting the device is lower than that of mirror models;
focus delay;
devices of this type are inferior to mirror-type devices in terms of image quality.

The best representatives of mirrorless system devices for photography include the following representatives:

Fuji model X-T10 is a fairly budget camera, not inferior in terms of frame quality to more expensive representatives of this type of device;
Olympus OMDE-M10 II series. This series and model of mirrorless devices of this manufacturer received wide use among amateur photographers due to its functionality and quality;
The Sony A7 II series is an excellent device, which received the title of the best system camera of 2018 due to excellent image quality, a large set of functions, additional features;
Panasonic model LumixG. This device has earned the recognition of users due to its user-friendly interface, good image quality and OLED color viewfinder;
Nikon 1J series. A mirrorless camera for novice photographers who are no longer enough with the capabilities of a conventional digital camera.

SLR and mirrorless system cameras, review and comparison of the functions of which showed that both types of cameras allow you to create different unique images. However, the opinion of users is divided and each of the types of system devices has its own connoisseurs. So, SLR cameras are most often used for shooting by professional photographers, as they make it possible to create quality pictures. the highest class. Due to the high performance and speed of operation, mirror-type devices allow you to shoot sports events, various competitions, and various kinds of celebrations. Mirrorless system devices have gained popularity among photography and outdoor enthusiasts due to their compact design. This type of camera is suitable for both beginners and advanced amateur photographers.

Or mirrorless, you need to understand what advantages and disadvantages each of them has. A mirrorless camera, due to the absence of a pentaprism and a mirror, has a much smaller size, which is an undeniable advantage for a mobile, active person.
Such a device, with a compact lens, fits easily into a bag or, so you can carry it with you every day. The SLR camera loses in this matter. The dimensions and weight of such devices are much larger, however, thanks to this, more controls can be placed on the case, it is more convenient to hold it in your hands.

Most mirrorless cameras are not equipped with a viewfinder, its function is performed by the LCD monitor, which is difficult to use in sunny weather due to glare. In addition, the monitor consumes a lot of battery power. Only expensive models mirrorless cameras have an electronic viewfinder. SLR cameras have an optical viewfinder.

Due to the fact that in mirrorless cameras the image is transmitted to the LCD monitor directly from the matrix, it works constantly, which is why it gets quite hot. Heating causes additional noise and deterioration in image quality, which, however, is rarely noticeable. Therefore, when shooting, it is better to turn off the camera more often to allow the matrix to cool down.

SLR cameras use phase focus during shooting. Those. it has special sensors that receive the light flux directly from the object. There are no such sensors in mirrorless cameras, since there is nowhere to place them, so software methods of contrast focusing are used for focusing. Phase focusing is much faster and slightly more accurate than contrast focusing.

Another disadvantage of mirrorless cameras is a relatively small set of interchangeable lenses designed for this type of equipment, as well as their high price. However, manufacturers are actively working on the creation of new models. In addition, with the help of various adapters, it is possible to use both lenses from and lenses from old Soviet devices.

One of the most important parts of a camera is its sensor. In this sense, mirrorless cameras are in no way inferior to their opponents. In most cases, manufacturers install the same matrices in mirrorless cameras as in their SLR models.

So, comparing the characteristics of SLR and mirrorless cameras does not give an unambiguous answer to the question of which type of technology is better. The main advantage of mirrorless cameras is their compactness, but in other respects they are catching up with their competitors every year.

Thus, if you need a camera for every day that you can carry with you, you should choose a mirrorless camera. Its functionality is enough to solve 99% of the tasks facing an amateur photographer. If you want to take photos of the most professional quality, you should choose semi-professional or professional. In any case, the quality of the picture is more dependent not on the camera, but on the talent of the photographer.

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 take the DSLR camera out of my hands only 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 that shows 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 obviously not happy with its financial performance, and this leads the company to attribute the impossibility of meeting its economic forecasts to the global state of the economy - and this continues quarter after quarter, year after year for several recent 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 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 in further development which makes sense to me. 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 outperform 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 article Why DX Has No Future, 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 give 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 exposes 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, then 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 capable of analyzing large volume enough information 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 power consumption reduction, 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 size 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 resolution improvements, faster continuous shooting, more video recording options, better autofocus modules, and possibly more built-in modules like Wi-Fi and GPS, but that'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 scenes, 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. Increased battery life, more reliable system autofocus (particularly for capturing fast and unpredictable movements), a larger buffer, expanding the range of lenses (especially super telephoto lenses), improving the electronic viewfinder, equipping cameras with built-in Wi-Fi + GPS modules and improved ergonomics - these are the directions in which mirrorless camera manufacturers , in my opinion, should 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 making 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!

Do you need a mirror anymore?

To understand whether a mirror is needed in a camera, let's talk about what functions it performs. In ancient times, when there was no autofocus yet, and in cameras instead of matrices there was a film, the task of the mirror was only to redirect the light from the lens into the pentaprism of the optical viewfinder. The photographer could literally look at the world through the lens. But in order to take a picture, the mirror had to be removed - at the moment the shutter button was pressed, it rose and did not participate in the formation of the image. So we draw the first conclusion: the mirror does not affect the quality of the picture in any way!

As the era of autofocus came into photography in the 1980s, camera designs became much more complex. Since then, the camera has not one, but several mirrors. Moreover, the largest (the one that redirects light to the viewfinder) has a translucent window. Part of the light passes through it, reflects off the secondary mirror, and hits the autofocus sensor. And at the time of shooting, this whole structure rises and develops.

Agree, not a very elegant technical solution - a constantly jumping system of mirrors. Its obvious advantages are only the ability to work with an optical viewfinder and very fast autofocus using a separate phase module. But really, such a completely complex mechanism works only in the top models of DSLRs, comparable in price to a new car.

In mirrorless cameras, the functions of the mirror were redistributed between other camera systems, and the mirror itself went not even on an indefinite vacation, but “in the trash.” Why look at the future frame through the optical viewfinder and lens, if you can see it already on the screen, with the exposure set, white balance and other parameters? It's more logical! This is exactly how mirrorless cameras work, showing on the display or in the electronic viewfinder a picture directly from the matrix using all the shooting settings.

Skeptics may note that no matter how perfect electronic stuffing camera, there is always a delay in displaying the picture on the display. And they will be right, but only partly. Viewfinder lag shortens from model to model. So, for the Olympus OM-D E-M10, it was only 16 ms, and in newer models it became even less. In the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II, the viewfinder is almost inertialess.

In early models of mirrorless cameras, it could be difficult to focus, which here is carried out exclusively on the matrix. But in the end, autofocus speed is more dependent on the processor. As time passes, we see that the actual focusing speed is not inferior to many DSLRs, and often exceeds them. The advantage of DSLRs here, if not completely disappeared, then, like a popsicle on a summer day, is melting before our eyes.

What's in return?

We found that the rejection of the mirror did not fundamentally “spoil” the cameras. But there must be some advantages that the developers were trying to achieve? They are, and there are a lot of them!

The most obvious is size. The elimination of the mirror unit with various motors to lift it freed up a lot of space inside the camera. The massive optical viewfinder has also been replaced by a more compact electronic viewfinder (and some models don't even have one). The dimensions of the camera have decreased quite significantly: excess weight reset.

A less obvious advantage is a reduction in the distance from the matrix to the lens (working distance). Through an adapter on such a camera, you can put almost any optics, including those from DSLRs. By the way, Olympus and Panasonic lenses with Micro 4/3 mount will work fine on Olympus cameras, as well as lenses with 4/3 mount mounted through an adapter. For example, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 will provide very fast and confident autofocus. With other models, autofocus with DSLR lenses will be less reliable.

The rejection of the optical viewfinder and mirror made it possible to keep the camera shutter open all the time and build a frame according to the display or electronic viewfinder. This is called Live View mode. Its main advantage is the control of exposure, white balance and other settings in the process of shooting. You see a picture on the screen that will become the future frame. And on it you can impose all the service information you need - this is an additional plus.

It should be noted that in modern DSLRs the Live View mode is also implemented, but it is not very fast and is very limited in capabilities.

For example, the histogram and electronic level help a lot when shooting. You can correct trapezoidal (perspective) distortions of the future frame right in the viewfinder if you are shooting architecture.

When shooting frames at ultra-long shutter speeds, you can see on the screen or in the viewfinder how the exposure of the picture “accumulates” (this feature is called Live Time). Even spectacular color filters can be applied to the future frame even before shooting, seeing the result in advance.

Let's not forget that a number of Olympus models have a folding display. This is very convenient when shooting from uncomfortable positions: from the ground or from outstretched arms. In many models, the display is touch-sensitive. This allows you to touch the desired focus point. Agree, this is a little more convenient than choosing the autofocus sensor with the buttons without looking up from the optical viewfinder.

Autofocus in mirrorless

Since we started talking about autofocus, it's time to figure out how it works in mirrorless cameras and whether there are advantages over DSLRs in this matter. Recall that there is no separate autofocus module traditional for DSLRs. And since it is not there, then there are no problems of its adjustment (problems of front and back focus). This is a plus.

Focusing occurs directly on the matrix. Currently, depending on the camera model, contrast, phase or hybrid autofocus can be used. In the first case, focusing happens like this: the automation rotates the focus ring step by step and evaluates the image from the matrix. When the sharpness reaches its maximum at the desired point and begins to decline, the automation returns the ring to the position of maximum sharpness. Voila! Focusing completed. This method is the most accurate. But because the camera doesn't know the correct initial focus direction, speed sometimes suffers.

The second way is due to the phase detection sensors located on the matrix. For example, it works in the Olympus OM-D E-M1 camera when using 4/3 mount lenses. The sensors are able to calculate the required lens shift direction and its amount. Such autofocus can be slightly faster, but less accurate. But it is indispensable when shooting with continuous autofocus on the subject.

Most often, the two methods are used simultaneously. The final focusing occurs, of course, according to the contrast principle, since the accuracy is increased in this case.

But if in the process of focusing the camera "sees" the future frame, why not use additional information to make life easier for the photographer? For example, Olympus cameras have not only face recognition, but also eye recognition of the model. When shooting a portrait, the camera can find an eye in the frame and automatically focus on it. Can SLRs do this? Not all, but only a couple of models, the price of which can shock even a trained person. In most DSLRs, this function can only work in Live View mode. At the same time, due to the low speed of DSLRs in Live View mode, face recognition is most often useless.

The constantly "seeing" matrix comes in handy with manual focusing. For quick focusing, you can use focus peaking. In this case, the sharpened fragments will be marked with a contrasting color. This helps the photographer or videographer (and for filming this feature is very handy!) to clearly control the focus.

A few words about the matrix

Finally, for dessert, we left questions related to mirrorless matrices. Let's start with the size. Mirrorless cameras with sensors are being produced today different sizes: From tiny 1/2.3″ to gigantic full frame. Olympus cameras occupy the golden mean here, having 4/3 ″ matrices (crop factor x2 relative to the full frame).

On the one hand, the area of such a matrix is sufficient to obtain high-quality images. In low light conditions, the noise level will be acceptable. With a fast lens, a beautiful and rather strong background blur is possible.

On the other hand, a reduced area compared to a full frame allows you to reduce the weight, size, and most importantly, the cost of cameras and lenses.

Separately, it must be said about the possibilities of macro photography. The Olympus system has a lens that provides 1:1 macro zoom. That is minimum size the object being filmed will be equal to the size of the matrix. So the object with approximate dimensions 18×13.5 mm (this is exact dimensions matrix) can be photographed in the entire frame.

The latest models of the company also have an electronic shutter function, which allows you to take a picture absolutely silently and not create vibrations from the mechanical shutter clap. At the same time, shooting with ultra-short shutter speeds of the order of 1/16000 s is possible. This greatly simplifies the work with high-aperture optics in bright light. And also, if you are fond of time-lapses (time-lapse video shooting), then using an electronic shutter you can save a lot of mechanical shutter life.

The use of a not too large image sensor allowed the Olympus developers to implement an optical image stabilizer based on a sensor shift in the camera body. And this did not lead to an increase in the dimensions of the camera. But in the latest models of the company, the so-called five-axis stabilization is widely used.

Such a stabilizer is able to compensate for camera displacement in five degrees of freedom out of six possible. And it really works! When shooting handheld, the photographer can take exposures that were previously only possible when using a tripod. And videographers, due to the use of a stabilizer, in some cases can refuse various suspensions such as a steadicam - the picture will be quite smooth.

Finally, with a similar stabilizer and a 16MP resolution, some Olympus cameras can capture 40MP shots in superb detail. How? To do this, you need a stationary subject and a tripod. Due to step-by-step shift of the matrix by a negligibly small amount of half a pixel and taking a series of shots, the camera is able to automatically glue them together into one frame of increased resolution. Great solution for subject photography!

This is not the only useful "software" feature of Olympus cameras. With macro photography, there is also a focus stacking function, when the camera itself takes a series of images, changing the focus by a small amount and collecting frames into one with an increased depth of field. Thanks to the five-axis stabilizer, such shooting is possible even handheld without using a tripod.

However, we will talk about the various functions of Olympus cameras in our subsequent articles, which will help us prepare professional photographers who have been shooting on such cameras for many years in various genres. Stay tuned!