The DSLR has been called a dinosaur on the brink of extinction. It has been called old-fashioned, or even outdated technology. It is all because of the mirrorless cameras that hit the market a few years ago now. Let’s have a look at the differences between the two and find out if both systems can live next to each other.
Technology is making huge leaps. It is all because of the chips that are getting smaller, faster, and more energy efficient. It is making things possible that would have sounded as science fiction in the old original Star Trek series. Technology has made our cameras advanced computers capable of amazing things.
We got a screen on the back of our camera to view the photo we took a second before. It is possible to judge the result and change settings if needed to acquire a perfect photo. Although the consumer compact cameras already used these screens as a sort of viewfinder, the traditional DSLR camera kept using a mirror and pentaprism to see the image as projected by the lens. It was no surprise to eventually see a small screen appear inside the viewfinder, making the mirror and pentaprism no longer necessary. The modern mirrorless camera was born.
We are at a moment where the mirrorless system has reached maturity, I think. Electronic view finders are almost as good as the real thing, and will probably getting even better in the next years. Cameras can be smaller and lighter because there is no longer a mirror and pentaprism inside. It does not make the photography equipment smaller, though, because the sensor sizes still require the same large lenses.
Now we have reached the point where there are two different types of camera. We have the traditional digital single lens reflex camera, the DSLR, and the new interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras. Both have the possibility to change lenses, use flash guns, and share all the same benefits. The only difference is having a mirror and pentaprism, or not.
Or is it? Lets have a look to a few differences.
1. A Mirrorless Camera Can Be Much Smaller Than a DSLR
Although it does not applies to all mirrorless cameras, it is possible to make a mirrorless camera very small. The mirror and pentaprism take up a lot of space. Removing it allows the body to be much smaller, and lighter. The absence of a mirror make it also possible to place the lens closer to the sensor.
Although the camera body does not need the traditional DSLR look, many mirrorless cameras resemble the design of a DSLR. While some manufacturers miniaturize the mirrorless, making it as small as possible, some keep the size relatively large, resembling the full size DSLR. I find the extremely small camera bodies not that comfortable, but opinions differ.
2. A Mirrorless Camera Is Not Necessarily Less Complex
Even with the absence of a complex mirror, a mirrorless camera is not necessary less complex. The complexity is just very different. Indeed, a mirrorless has fewer moving components, which probably is much easier to build. But the complexity is more software related. The sensor is used constantly and not only has to register the light when a photo is taken, it also is used for focusing and measuring exposure.
Also the electronic viewfinder needs to have very high refresh rates to imitate a optical viewfinder as much as possible. And the image on the screen needs to amplify enough for it to be able to see in dark environments.
3. A Dedicated Autofocus Sensor inside the DSLR
Every DSLR has a dedicated autofocus sensor hidden underneath the mirror. This dedicated sensor makes it possible to optimize it for just one purpose. The autofocus can be made very fast, responsive, and flexible. It is perfect for fast action and tracking objects and DSLR still outperform the mirrorless autofocus systems at this time.
Nevertheless, the mirrorless autofocus systems have other benefits. It is much easier to use the complete sensor for measuring focus distance. It also is possible to recognize faces or even eyes. For this, some mirrorless camera performances are amazing and perhaps better than the DSLR systems. I am sure the next few years mirrorless technologies will advance to match action and tracking objects like a DSLR.
4. Electronic Viewfinder Shortcomings
The absence of a mirror and pentaprism makes it necessary to use a digital screen for a viewfinder. The pixel density of these small screens have to be very high to have a good resolution. These screens are becoming better by the year and almost resemble the details you can have with an optical viewfinder.
Refresh rate can be a problem of electronic viewfinders. Especially with fast moving objects, and tracking objects, the refresh rate may be not enough to imitate a real optical system. Also modern LED lights may flicker a lot when these are working with almost the same frequency.
I have found the electronic viewfinders being less usable with night photography. Looking through the viewfinder make you lose your night sight in dark environments because the screens always emit light. Depending on the camera it may also be difficult to generate a usable viewing image on the screen.
5. A Mirrorless Camera Always Has To Be Activated
When using a DSLR you can always look through the camera to see the things you want to photograph. You may just want to look for a composition, or use it in another way. For this, you don’t have to switch on the camera.
With a mirrorless camera you always need to switch on the camera, even if you just want to take a look at a possible composition. Over the years I personally have found this to be one of bigger disadvantages, although you will get used to it. If I had a choice, I rather have an optical viewfinder.
Which is Better?
These are just five obvious differences between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera. But regardless of the differences, both types of cameras are very capable machines, each having their own strengths and weaknesses. I believe it is foolish to bash one system over the other because in the right hands both systems produce the same qualitative photo. In other words, both have a right of existence, and can live next to each other without a problem.
I have photographed extensively with both DSLR and mirrorless cameras. I used Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Fujifilm, Leica, and Hasselblad. I have seen the differences, similarities, and experienced how both DSLR and mirrorless cameras perform in real life situations. Based on my experience I can advise everyone to use the system you like the most without worrying about the other camera system. Never forget, the camera is just the tool. Nothing else.
What kind of camera system do you use? It is mirrorless or DSLR, and it there a reason why you are using that camera system at this moment? Please leave your answer in the comments below.
Once you start using mirrorless, you'll probably use DSLRs less, and may even decide to dump them altogether. My DSLRs have been relegated to the studio, anything else is mirrorless. All future camera purchases will be mirrorless for me. The DSLR is over.
Good to know.
I use mirrorless as well as DSLR and I prefer the DSLR. So what you are saying is personal, not a rule as you might suggest
Yes, I suppose I should have added that it's how I feel about it, inasmuch as the writing's on the wall.
Yeah, a few years ago I bought a Lumix G7 just to check out morrorless, and I have ended up using it a lot more than I figured I would (more than just photos for Ebay, etc). It really does come down to weight and bulk. But for serious stuff I still like my L glass, and although I've only tested an EOS R, once you use an adapter, things aren't so small and light anymore. So for FF I'll be sticking with a DSLR (for now), and continue to use MFT for mirrorless.
Not me. My friend buys everything and I came over and pickrd up the z6/7 to play with and I not only got turned off, I got disgusted. To each his own. Once you use single digit bodies, holding a mirrorless feels like a toy. Im certain when the flagship z will come along, ill look at that direction if it can offer me something I must have to stay competitive that my dslr cant do. As of now, there isnt. It will be quite a few years. I love the lens gear I use and signa arrnt making z mount and that ftz is slow as molasses with certain lenses and the af is not mature yet in the z
You should try the Panasonic S1 or S1R. Those are mirrorless cameras that feel like a serious camera. And I found the S1 to be almost perfect.
I think about the feel of a camera has nothing to do with having a mirror or not, but about the design. Although a lot of manufacturers think mirrorless has to be small and tiny. Sony is a good example, although these cameras are really good, their design is really bad. At least, that is my opinion. And in line of what you think, I gues.
They look like competent cameras. The price is too high for what im willing to spend. And I never biy a first gen anything. As much as I dont like small cameras snd hate sony even more, the a7iii is great all arounder that ticks most of my wants vs all the others. Price/performance/features. They can also be had used for little. A good first vid camera for weddings till I desire something better
Bought the Canon RP last year to "replace" my Canon 6D. I'm not fully on the mirrorless bandwagon. Many of the things mentioned here are the reasons I'm not completely sold on it. Most of my issues have to do with the electronic viewfinder.
It's pretty low-res. Details can be lost or really hard to see. The quality of the colors is not accurate. The image looks flat in bright instances. If you're shooting occasionally throughout a period, but need to quickly take a photo, it takes a few moments for the screen to wake back up when you're ready shooting, sometimes missing the subject because all you see is a black screen. I HAD to turn off preview after a photo. There's currently not a way to ONLY show previews on the back screen. They kept popping up inside of the viewfinder, and was really throwing me off. But you cannot take a photo and then instantly look at the back screen. You have to hit the play button. When looking at photos on the back screen, or adjusting the menu, there's been several times where I get too close to the sensor and it turns off the back screen and send the image into the viewfinder.
While, I really think mirrorless can be great, I still prefer the SLR's. And really, the only reason I can see to go mirrorless is to have less moving parts, but I've been shooting with an SLR since 2000, have gone through 1 SLR, and 3 DSLR's and have yet to have had any issues with the mechanical movements.
So, to each their own. There was just too many issues for me to LOVE mirrorless. And honestly, I've actually shot more on film in 2019 than I did with my brand new Canon RP.
But the one thing that the RP wins over the 6D is the body. It feels much better. But only when using the body extension. WIthout it, it's too small.
That is a good one... replay in the EVF. It should be possible to turn that thing off indeed.
I consider being able to look at images using the EVF one of the biggest advantages of mirrorless. I love being able to block out all light and really look at an image. On the other hand, as you mention, the getting too close to the evf when doing other things is a huge downside of mirrorless. It's endlessly frustrating. Nothing's perfect I guess.
Indeed. Nothing is perfect, and opinions differ. That is why it should be customizable, so it could fit everyone's need.
That camera was designed to rape Canon users of their money and not even scratch the surface of what mirrorless can be. The RP was released and forgotten in the same week.
Buy a mirrorless camera designed to use all the technology and software advancements mirrorless is becoming known for and you’ll be more for moving forward.
Use the AF on a high end mirrorless and you’ll see the light.
I agree, the RP was a strange move from Canon. But I saw the same moves form other brands. Like the A9 and A9 II from Sony.
Well... as long as people continu to "upgrade" their already perfectly working machine for minor improvements they probably won't ever use, manufacturers keep on doing this. It is all about making money.
The A9ii was an upgrade of more than a few things that customers said they wanted. It wasn’t marketed as a completely new camera, hence the “ii”
But the RP wasn’t an upgrade of anything. It was a lower performing model that was mirrorless for no reason from a company that was promoting it as “ground breaking” <- Not my words, that’s what Canon said.
That’s the point I was making. Buy a mirrorless camera that actually makes use of being mirrorless.
I don't think I understand what you mean in your last sentence. A ML camera that makes use of being ML? Can you explain?
Mirrorless AF from edge to edge.
Completely silent shooting.
Ability to adapt all the Canon lenses I have (all my EF ones) and the vintage collection I bought after I made the switch.
Adapting lenses is not a reason for switching to mirroless.
The other two are.
For my curiosity; did you miss the AF from edge to edge, or is it nice to have? And when do you need completely silent shooting?
It is a reason to switch when you take into account you can adapt lenses from multiple platforms not just the one you’re switching from.
The ability to switch from an E to EF to whatever you want is absolutely an advantage.
My Sony doesn’t miss unless I am using it incorrectly or expect too much for the situation. Everything has limitations.
When I shoot weddings I shoot silent.
Ah yes. I understand.
Yeah. I should have held off. I got it the within the first week of it coming out. Played with it at the store. Took some sample photos to compare to my 6D, and then ended up purchasing based on the hype. I should have waited to see what they announce this year. Because the negative far outdo the positives.
I've got a decent selection of lenses. All EF mounts. I do like what I've been seeing in the store for the new R mounts, but damn they are large and expensive. The R-system will definitely not be for entry level shooters.
I would go to Sony, but have too much invested in Canon right now. But if I would have caught that Prime Day sale/error last year, switching wouldn't have been an issue.
Tell me, Dustin, what do you expect to gain from switching to mirrorless? Is there a specific reason for that?
Not sure. I thought it was supposed to be this whole new revolution of the next generation of cameras. But after owning one now, I really don't see any benefit over a traditional SLR. At least for the way I use it. I can however see the benefit for larger glass as the sensor has been brought forward. That part will be cool. But I'm not quite up to having the funds to get the new R lenses yet.
Thanks for sharing.
I am afraid the media did try to believe us it was a revolution.
I had over 5k in lenses from Canon and I adapt them. There’s no reason not to.
Yes, it may focus slower with an adapter but the adapter I use is the MC-11 and costs 100 bucks. It’s a small price to pay compared to paying for RF Mount lenses that cost an insane amount of money unless you want a kit lens.
yes. i have the adapter too. Just saying that if this is the new standard of their focus of lenses, im nowhere near ready to switch. It'll also be hard for anyone just starting out to go straight to the R-mount lenses too.
In your case it’s the body that is the limiting factor. They crippled the RP to the extreme.
I haven’t used the EF to R adapter because I switched to Sony.
I'm sorry, but they will just die. As soon as canon also figures how to do proper mirrorless af.
Perhaps. But didn't they say that also about LP's, and, cassettes, and those things?
Tell it to the folks shooting film...jeeez. It's just a tool.
It's not the same as film or even cassettes. The output is the same as that of a milc, the nostalgia factor is a lot less - the usage is largely the same as mirrorless after al, and keeping the R&D or even just the manufacturing going is far more costly. Obviously people will keep using old gear until it lasts, but manufacturing new kit? Film will definitely outlive the dslr.
I have to see how I can use my current lenses before I make the transition. I have one I want to upgrade but the rest I am not ready for. Also, something like the possible R6 could be enough for me if rumors become true. I have no rush.
I am curious about the EOS R5... hope to get it in my hand soon
Surprised no one mentions noise. Weddings and other church services, wildlife.... During at least one of the televised presidential candidate debates, only mirrorless were permitted because the mics were picking up the mirror slap.
It is something that never was a problem, and was accepted. But now silent shooting is possible, I can image it will be something that is wanted more and more
It wasn't a problem because there was no alternative. But now there is, so it could become a problem.
I never had any problem with the noise when shooting a wedding. But I could imagine it will be a problem when there is a photographer that is shooting continues.
Well. I think it is a good thing, being able to shoot silent. Although I love to have a bit of sound that can act as feedback. When I was shooting with the Sony A9 in silent mode, 20 fps, I had absolutely no usable feedback from the camera.
I guess they could use a vibrating shutter button.
> It is something that never was a problem, and was accepted
Again, you are completely ignorant and the last person who should be writing an article like this. Why the hell do you think sound blimps - costing as much as the cameras themselves - for DSLRs existed? (If you knew they existed, I mean.)
Over time, it may be mandatory but ive never had an issue with shooting some event/wedding and being required to shoot with mirrorless. It will be quite a few years till ill consider ml. Its not only cameras to consider but lenses as well. Dslr has been proven, delivers and works. Nothing ml does is something im missing or wpuld benefit with to make more money. And the z cameras are not on par with dslr af and 1 slot makes them a hell no, for now
I shot a wedding in 2018 with the Canon EOS R, next to my EOS 5D mark IV. Although I hated shooting with a single card slot I noticed mirrorless does work very well. You have to get used to the EVF, but the one thing I hated te most was the second of review in the EVF. It really bothered me.
There should be a way of turning review inside the EVF off, while keeping it on the LCD screen.
I am looking forward to the new EOS R5. I hope to get my hands on it soon for a review.
My 5D3 and 5D4 offer silent drive modes. While not being completely silent, people are much less easily distracted. Most of the time I operate my cameras in silent mode, unless I need the highest drive speed possible.
Indeed. That is the way to go.
As I mentioned earlier in some respond; I hate really silent shooting, like I used with the Sony A9 at 20 fps. There was no good feedback when shooting. A bit of sound from the camera gives a good feedback on what you're doing. And the silent drive modes of the 5D3 and 5D4 (and a lot of other cameras) are perfect. Nobody gets bothered by that.
> There was no good feedback when shooting. A bit of sound from the camera gives a good feedback on what you're doing.
If you need to hear the camera to know what you are doing, then you don't know what you are doing
> And the silent drive modes of the 5D3 and 5D4 (and a lot of other cameras) are perfect. Nobody gets bothered by that.
This is more utter bs. You're mistaking that you don't mind that much noise your applications with the idea that it is never a problem. Wild life shooters and photojournalists often need completely silent operation. So do some wedding shooters if they're taking pictures of the ceremony.
"Never forget, the camera is just the tool. Nothing else." Wow really? Saying that DSLRs are dead is like saying muscle cars are dead, vinyl records are dead, rock'n'roll is dead, and the list can go on. It's a tool to get the job done.
That is why I wonder why people keep saying that. For some it is a reason to switch over to mirrorless, which seems really foolish to me.
Yes, but does what "Seems foolish" to you matter? You're written an article on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
Everybody should use what they want. At this moment in time, mirrorless is still a rather new technology and not at the end of its development cycle while d-slrs seem to be.
It also seems to be the part of the market where most of the R&D money goes to.
But we'll see. I got used to a mirrorless rather quickly and have never looked back but to each its own. I am glad people can choose.
As far as the reference to vinyl and film goes, they are niche products and not main stream anymore.