Why do modern DSLR cameras need a mirror?

[MysteryLemon]

Until they properly implement on sensor phase detection then I can't see it happening.

The technology is here but in its infancy and doesn't seem to have been implemented very well so far. As you suggest, it will get better and there will soon be no need for a camera to have a separate AF system served by a mirror in order to have phase detection auto focus.

[Tuna]

TheRainMaker said:

Five years time I would put money on no major mainstream pro camera having a mirror, it's just the way the industries going.

EVFs have some major benefits over an optical viewfinder and they are getting better all the time.

Really not sure about that - for pros, there are plenty of tethered camera options which would allow you to shoot through a high end monitor, but I'm not aware of that being common practice.

The screen on the back of a camera is a pretty awful way to view the image - the field of view is poor, no isolation from ambient light and you have to physically be at (what feels to me) an unnatural distance from the camera to see things right. An EVF makes more sense, but then it comes down to dynamic range and resolution, neither of which are 'solved problems' yet, particularly in the sort of specialist small display you need to fit in a camera body.

[Mr Will]

TheRainMaker said:

EVFs have some major benefits over an optical viewfinder and they are getting better all the time.

Such as? They are possibly cheaper to make, and are certainly smaller but aside from that what can they do that a DSLR can't?

[Elderly]

P,

MysteryLemon said:

.......... there will soon be no need for a camera to have a separate AF system served by a mirror in order to have phase detection auto focus.

The Olympus OM-D EM-1 ( with no mirror ) already has on-sensor phase detection which is utilised when in tracking modes,
as well as the usually more accurate contrast detect which is its default autofocus mode when not tracking.

[MysteryLemon]

Elderly said:

The Olympus OM-D EM-1 ( with no mirror ) already has on-sensor phase detection which is utilised when in tracking modes,
as well as the usually more accurate contrast detect which is its default autofocus mode when not tracking.

Yup, there are a few cameras out there that have taken a step in the right direction but DSLRs are still better at doing what mirrorless cameras are trying to do. The tech in DSLRs are much more mature than the way mirrorless cameras are going about it. If you want to shoot moving subjects, a DSLR is still the best tool for the job. That will change over time as tech advances though.

[rich888]

DIW35 said:

Also, the mirror flapping about is only part of the problem. A lot of the noise generated by a DSLR when taking a photo actually comes from the shutter.

Interesting that you say that, makes me wonder whether it might be an idea to do away with the mechanical shutter altogether and implement an LCD shutter, going from clear to black in a fraction of a second, perhaps a coating on the sensor. Would probably cheaper to produce, faster, and far more reliable.

Dr Jekyll said:

rich888 said:

I ask this because on a number of occasions each year I take photographs in the local concert hall or theatre, when you can literally hear a pin drop, so the clatter of the mirror moving out of the way when using a DSLR sounds deafening, so I generally wait will till the end of the performance when the audience start applauding. If taking the photo was silent it would make life so much easier.
.

Traditionally this was what Leicas were for.

Unfortunately my pockets aren't that deep!

MysteryLemon said:

Elderly said:

The Olympus OM-D EM-1 ( with no mirror ) already has on-sensor phase detection which is utilised when in tracking modes,
as well as the usually more accurate contrast detect which is its default autofocus mode when not tracking.

Yup, there are a few cameras out there that have taken a step in the right direction but DSLRs are still better at doing what mirrorless cameras are trying to do. The tech in DSLRs are much more mature than the way mirrorless cameras are going about it. If you want to shoot moving subjects, a DSLR is still the best tool for the job. That will change over time as tech advances though.

I agree with you that the DSLR market is extremely mature which keeps prices competitive, as well as ensuring a high level of competition between the manufacturers to keep on improving the quality of the cameras. This coupled with a plentiful choice of lenses to choose from, and a wealth of other ancillary components, will in my opinion, ensure that the DSLR remains at the top of the pecking order for the foreseeable future, but that's not to say that major improvements cannot be implemented as and when the technology is developed to supersede existing methods.

I remember my father saying back in the 1990s that digital would never exceed the quality of film, and now look what has happened!

[Mr Will]

rich888 said:

DIW35 said:

Also, the mirror flapping about is only part of the problem. A lot of the noise generated by a DSLR when taking a photo actually comes from the shutter.

Interesting that you say that, makes me wonder whether it might be an idea to do away with the mechanical shutter altogether and implement an LCD shutter, going from clear to black in a fraction of a second, perhaps a coating on the sensor. Would probably cheaper to produce, faster, and far more reliable.

Electronic shutters exist already and are used in most compact and phone cameras. Lots of DSLRs also use the technology for their silent mode. They come with a few downsides though (depending on the type) which is why DSLRs use mechanical ones most of the time.

[TheRainMaker]

Mr Will said:

Such as? They are possibly cheaper to make, and are certainly smaller but aside from that what can they do that a DSLR can't?

Zebra
Focus Peaking
Digital level gauge
On screen Histogram

[davepoth]

rich888 said:

I remember my father saying back in the 1990s that digital would never exceed the quality of film, and now look what has happened!

He's right.

[Simpo Two]

TheRainMaker said:

Mr Will said:

Such as? They are possibly cheaper to make, and are certainly smaller but aside from that what can they do that a DSLR can't?

Zebra
Focus Peaking
Digital level gauge
On screen Histogram

If you can use a DSLR properly you'll get the focus right and the exposure near enough without gadgets better suited to video.

[TheRainMaker]

Simpo Two said:

If you can use a DSLR properly you'll get the focus right and the exposure near enough without gadgets better suited to video.

Near enough or perfect? I am from a video background and we call gadgets tools :-) dslr based cameras are being used more and more for video, any manufacture who doesn't keep up with the crowd will get left behind.

[Pickled]

TheRainMaker said:

Zebra
Focus Peaking
Digital level gauge
On screen Histogram

Doesn't the D810 have all those features?

[LongQ]

TheRainMaker said:

Simpo Two said:

If you can use a DSLR properly you'll get the focus right and the exposure near enough without gadgets better suited to video.

Near enough or perfect? I am from a video background and we call gadgets tools :-) dslr based cameras are being used more and more for video, any manufacture who doesn't keep up with the crowd will get left behind.

That's a marketing consideration.

The manufacturers may be trying to make better returns on video sales but pushing them into a new territory (for consumer video) that includes potential for additional high value sales - lenses and stuff - that normal consumer video has not previously connected with. However when you can get a "market acceptable" level of crap video for Facebook or wherever from a mobile phone that offers easy sharing why would you want to use a separate camera?

They include the features because the cost of doing so is low and it's a few more boxes ticked and "new models" justified for marketing fluff. At some point very soon the whole buzz, such as it is, will move to 4000k as the next available thing to add. I have no doubt that, as before, the majority of buyers will make it a must have feature and never use it in anger. Perhaps not at all. Heck, most people that buy SLRs never really used them and the same is true of DSLRs. I would bet it's the same for video cameras over the past 20 or 30 years too. Drawers and cupboards all over the world are filled with unused electronic imaging gizmos.

Meanwhile sales have been falling rapidly. I have not checked the official figures from the traditional major manufacturers for a few months but earlier this year the decline seem for the previous 2 or 3 years seemed to be continuing. Whether those manufacturers adding the listed "must haves" are bucking the trend I'm not sure but I haven't seem many reports that suggest they are. I assume the masses are not that interested in the new features.

[Simpo Two]

TheRainMaker said:

Near enough or perfect? I am from a video background and we call gadgets tools :-) dslr based cameras are being used more and more for video, any manufacture who doesn't keep up with the crowd will get left behind.

Yep, I produced and directed corporate video for 15 years and know that stills is a very different animal from moving picture. If you want to shoot video, then fine, but for stills, I prefer to see the real thing. I certainly don't need an artifical horizon to tell me when the shot's level, a fine VF grid is perfect.

As for keeping up with the crowd, that's true, they need to stick more toys in to keep people buying. But it doesn't mean they are useful in reality or that people will use them.

[Mr Will]

TheRainMaker said:

Mr Will said:

Such as? They are possibly cheaper to make, and are certainly smaller but aside from that what can they do that a DSLR can't?

Zebra
Focus Peaking
Digital level gauge
On screen Histogram

Flick it in to live view and a DSLR can do all of those.

[Lynchie999]

haha.. all these OVF people stuck in the dark ages.. spend some solid time with an EVF and you will find out why they are better... (Sony a77 user here)

[King Cnut]

Lynchie999 said:

haha.. all these OVF people stuck in the dark ages.. spend some solid time with an EVF and you will find out why they are better... (Sony a77 user here)

Pro photographers aren't essentially conservative - look how quickly they deserted film for digital. 15 years ago pro photographers used all sorts of different cameras for different jobs from SLRs to Large Format. Practically all of those cameras have now been replaced by either DSLRs or MF DSLRs with optical finders, not cameras with EVFs.

If EVFs met pro users requirements, they'd adopt them wholesale without hesitation. They haven't and don't look like doing so anytime in the near future.

You're wrong.

[King Cnut]

Lynchie999 said:

haha.. all these OVF people stuck in the dark ages.. spend some solid time with an EVF and you will find out why they are better... (Sony a77 user here)

Pro photographers aren't essentially conservative - look how quickly they deserted film for digital. 15 years ago pro photographers used all sorts of different cameras for different jobs from SLRs to Large Format. Practically all of those cameras have now been replaced by either DSLRs or MF DSLRs with optical finders, not cameras with EVFs.

If EVFs met pro users requirements, they'd adopt them wholesale without hesitation. They haven't and don't look like doing so anytime in the near future.

You're wrong.

[Simpo Two]

Lynchie999 said:

haha.. all these OVF people stuck in the dark ages.. spend some solid time with an EVF and you will find out why they are better... (Sony a77 user here)

Guess you've made loads of money with your EVF, it being so good and that?

[Elderly]

King said:

If EVFs met pro users requirements, they'd adopt them wholesale without hesitation. They haven't and don't look like doing so anytime in the near future.

If Nikon or Canon made APSC or FF with EVFs, I bet pros would you them.

Few pros use mirrorless cameras, not necessarily because they are mirrorless but because so far, the mirrorless camera manufacturers do not offer a professional service.
As a pro for over twenty years (in the analogue day) I used Nikon for my 35mm cameras; if I had equipment problems, I knew Nikon would always get me out of trouble fast, I also had the ability to be able to hire any exotic lens or part of their system in any part of the world for those jobs when it was not worth purchasing outright.

I still have my old sound blimps from when Working as a film and TV stills tog but I would love to have had the advantages of a good EVF instead of working almost blind inside of a blimp.

When I shot commercial architectural interiors, I would have loved to have been able to work tethered.
Peering at a large dim ground glass screen (slow lenses) with the camera in a position where sometimes my head didn't want to be was literally a pain.
And yes of course my screens had etched grids but I still had to get both horizontal and vertical planes level with the aid of spirit levels; a pair of electronic levels would have been bliss.

I really like looking through a FULL FRAME optical viewfinder, but the size (compared to APSC) and information that you can get with the latest generation of EVFs is very impressive.