Even if Sony is ahead in mirrorless sales, camera sales as a whole is going down due to mobile phones. We will probably reach the point where only pros and advanced amateurs will own an interchangeable lens camera.

I, as a photographer, find my P30 Pro good enough for family, friends and vacation shots and all other casual snapshots.

I use my DSLRs only when I can't afford to lose a shot, when I need top IQ and when I have special lighting needs.

To take a memory of your kid playing, of grandma in the garden, of your cat chasing the dog or some cityscape, the mobile phone is good enough for many people.

> I, as a photographer, find my P30 Pro good enough for family, friends and vacation shots and all other casual snapshots.

P30 Pro has a Sony camera chip, like almost all other "superphones"

Sony was making more money on smartphone chips than on the regular camera sensors.

Now, Eliot Management probably made them to shoot themselves in the foot:

1. The consumer product unit will now not be able to finance the RnD to push the tech forward. Imagine Sony cameras with Chinese CCDs.

2. On the opposite, without strong incentive to do loss making RnD, the IC unit will become just another commodity component maker

3. Asian companies tend to not to survive "financial engineering" style manoeuvres you see in America

Elliott? The article only mentions Daniel Loeb (Third Point Capital)

Hmm, maybe I misremembered them for their Softbank activism

Who do you think researches and supplies the lens and sensors for some really good phone cameras? Yes, Sony.

I think the one inch sensor that's rumored to come soon to smartphones will definitely push the smartphone to the next level and make the prosumer compacts (like the rx100) finally obsolete.

I don't think the sensor size is the limiting factor on a smartphone; rather the very small lens just doesn't let in enough light to really capture sharp images, especially ones that are far away

> doesn't let in enough light

Most smartphones lenses are f1.8 to f2.5 which is plenty fast. The images aren't sharp because the sensor is too damn small, it's more about sensor size than pixel density. That's why a 4x5" sheet of film still blow any digital camera away in term of details, sharpness, tonal range, &c. even when using 80 years old glass in front of it. You realistically can't get more than maybe 12 mega pixels of data from a phone sensor, you can't cheat optic laws by adding pixels.

This is the new 108mpx sensor used on phone, zoom anywhere in the pic and it looks more like a blurry abstract painting than a picture:

https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332...

https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332...

Compare that to a 6x6 camera (40 years old camera/lens) :

https://i.imgur.com/eEWx7ln.png

100% crop on the left tower: https://i.imgur.com/qy157qy.png

>The images aren't sharp because the sensor is too damn small, it's more about sensor size than pixel density. That's why a 4x5" sheet of film still blow any digital camera away in term of details, sharpness, tonal range, &c. even when using 80 years old glass in front of it.

Please demonstrate how it "blows away" any digital camera with a 80 year old lens. This sounds to me like a completely made up claim without any data behind it. (data != one random image)

Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses. So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology than Sony A7 + 16-35mm wide lens. See this stunning 1942 photo from a large format camera: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th...

>Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses.

In what way? Smartphone sensors have the highest pixel density and they can still resolve an amazing amount of detail through their not-so-great tiny lenses. When it comes to ILCs, everytime there is a bump in sensor resolution, it is entirely possible to extract more detail from the same lens (provided its was a good lens to begin with). And ILCs are still not at the level of pixel density as smartphones, so there is quite a bit of room for improvement.

> So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology

Not exactly because larger sensors mean larger lenses because of the larger image circle, and then you have a manufacturing challenge of grinding and polishing an even larger amount of glass, so it doesn't scale linearly like that.

>. See this stunning 1942 photo from a large format camera: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th....

That image is very very nice from a compositional standpoint. I respect the work of AA, but I don't feel its rude to point out that it is not particularly sharp by modern standards - the point I assume you were trying to demonstrate? Here's one that even an total rank amateur like me can produce.. which is sharper, with an el-cheapo bargain-bin samyang lens on a non-pro camera body (6d) https://imgur.com/a/l4HBWyi

> In what way?

The lenses aren't good enough to resolve details on the new "full frame" 50+ megapixels sensors. The smaller the sensor the more the lens has to resolve. a 4x5" sheet of film is ridiculously big compared to a "full frame" sensor, hence the lens aren't as stressed [0]

> Smartphone sensors have the highest pixel density and they can still resolve an amazing amount of detail through their not-so-great tiny lenses.

No they don't, there are many algorithm tricks to make you think it resolves more details but when you look closely there isn't any details, look at these 64mp samples [1] [2] [3] [4], they don't even look like pictures anymore.

> Not exactly because larger sensors mean larger lenses because of the larger image circle ... larger amount of glass

LF lenses are much simpler than regular lenses, they don't need floating elements, they're not zooms, they don't even need moving parts because you focus through the bellow. There is more glass if you look at the weight, but less glass in term of groups/elements. If anything they're smaller than new "full frame" lenses [5], they only get big if you want something faster than f5.6-4

This is what LF gives you: http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/vel... or https://youtu.be/sqN7n9bXgtU?t=288

[0] https://www.quinnimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/sizec...

[1] https://cdn57.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

[2] https://cdn57.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

[3] https://cdn57.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

[4] https://cdn57.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

[5] https://galerie-photo.com/manuels/nikkor-lenses-for-large-fo...

>The smaller the sensor the more the lens has to resolve. a 4x5" sheet of film is ridiculously big compared to a "full frame" sensor, hence the lens aren't as stressed [0]

I can accept that as a general statement, but it depends on many factors. For e.g. The 4x5 example you linked to was scanned at 4000DPI. 4000 DPI across a 24x36mm sensor gives approximately 20 mega pixels - which is entry level full frame. So its not stressing the lens any more than your LF capture.

Now its true that, at 60+ mega pixels you're doing 6500+DPI, and 240MP (pixel shift) even more so, you're stressing the optics, but we've found that the optics is quite capable of delivering.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen...

https://www.albertdros.com/single-post/2019/09/02/Sony-A7RIV...

>No they don't, there are many algorithm tricks to make you think it resolves more details but when you look closely there isn't any details, look at these 64mp samples [1] [2] [3] [4], they don't even look like pictures anymore.

Those are JPEGS on which noise reduction and sharpening was added by the camera. We'll have to compare RAWs to see the pixel level sharpness.

But again, its not my position that smartphones, which don't have the best lenses, can compete with X,Y or Z format. I'm just pointing out that we're not at the limit of optics, as with every bump in MP we see more details, especially so in professional cameras with professional grade lenses.

>LF lenses are much simpler than regular lenses, they don't need floating elements, they're not zooms, they don't even need moving parts because you focus through the bellow. There is more glass if you look at the weight, but less glass in term of groups/elements. If anything they're smaller than new "full frame" lenses [5], they only get big if you want something faster than f5.6-4

>This is what LF gives you: http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/vel.... or https://youtu.be/sqN7n9bXgtU?t=288

We'll have to do a side by side with the same image to really compare. I don't think you'll come away with LF "blows away" 35mm digital as the poster I responded to claimed.

With a larger sensor, you don't have to compress the image as much, so you can record more detail per unit of area.

If you take two pictures of the same scene, one with a small sensor, and the other with a larger sensor, the geometric difference is apparent.

Scale a 5 meter tree down to the size of a phone's sensor, and you're having to tightly pack the detail of the tree, to something smaller than your fingernail.

But shrink that same tree onto a bigger sensor, or a sheet of 4x5 film, and you don't compress the tree as much.

We don't notice the shortcomings of phone sensors until we try to print the photos. They don't enlarge very well. Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified.

But you can enlarge that piece of film to 8x10 no problem, and the detail is astounding.

If you only look at phone pictures on a phone, then they look very nice, and a piece of 4x5 film is bigger than some phone screens. There are more silver crystals (pixels) in the film than there are pixels in your phone screen, so you can't appreciate the total detail of film on a small phone either.

The thing to consider is choosing the sensor or the film size based on how you want to display the image. Then you pick the best camera for the situation, considering cost, convenience, usability, etc.

I have worked a lot of different analog film cameras and digital ones, and I've noticed that most cameras can take great pictures. You end up paying more for usability and quality. Pro bodies have dedicated buttons and whatnot, so you can accomplish what you need, very quickly.

A touch-screen camera with pure software controls is never going to be for pros, but, cell phones have their moments of better performance for getting the job done.

A cellphone camera is like a piano that plays chords but not individual notes as far as usability. A manual camera lets you do what you want and make up new chords.

Hope that clarifies the image sensor aspect. Aperture helps, but it can never make up for the constraints of the sensor.

> Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified.

Have you verified this personally or seen any data on this? I find this claim very hard to believe. I make several 24x36 prints in a year (albeit from APS-C and FF sensors, but sometimes heavily cropped) and 8x10 is a tiny size that should not present a challenge for any modern cellphone's sensor.

I've used online printing for my cell phone, even pictures from latest iPhones, and they look grainy at 4x6 or 5x7. Maybe it's just a poor printing service. But I spend a lot of time on my computer looking at photos, and the cell phone pics don't look as good. I think some rigorous testing would be a very fun project.

I have been meaning to shoot a roll of ISO 16 film, the CMS20 II by Adox. They claim it can resolve up to 500MP of details.

Would be great to compare to results to full frame with adapted film lens.

Here's their film page with sample pictures: http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/cms-20-ii-adotech-ii/

My canon is currently mid-roll with infrared, so it'll be a while before I get around to using it.

Sensor size is important because sensor sites are too damn small.

Lightfield or similar trickery with maybe 20 regular cameras together with software assemble a larger sensor, could work.

Huawei (and probably others) experimented with using multiple cameras to increase light sensitivity. They used monochrome sensors for luminance data along with color sensors. Recently that has fallen out of favor as lenses have improved, bigger apertures have become popular, and sensors themselves have improved, from RGBY sensor in the P30 to various quad-bayer arrangements.

Won't that either need a lens the size of the rx100's (way too big for a phone) or just be poor quality?

...unless light field stuff gets ready for the big time in which case lenses become obsolete

For some reason it's actually a lot less fun taking pictures with my fancy camera these days now that everyone has a pretty decent camera with them all the time. A shame!

I don’t think that’s the only reason. They also supply camera sensors for a lot of Smart phones.

True, Samsung has started the megapixel wars again with their 108 megapixel ISOCELL sensor[1] which are being used by couple of manufacturers already & it would be interesting to how Sony responds to it.

[1]https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/image-sensor/mobile-im...

Yes...but.

Is the ISOCELL any good?

It very much seems to be mostly numbers but it really can't back up the claims in actual visual image quality. The noise and required light to get anything near good shots is very high, the DOF on such a large sensor is downright tight, which is nice for making pretty looking shots..but really bad for just someone trying to capture a photo. Even on the S20 Ultra taking a photo of a person from 5 feet away results in the nose and eyes being in completely different focus.

The fact of the matter is that in normal use, a medium format mobile sensor with a moderate pixel count is preferrable. (I.E. iPhone 11 Pro, Pixel 4) as for 95% of shots you want a wide DOF to put all of the content in focus and great per-pixel aperture to reduce exposure time and ISO so you can reduce camera shake and Noise. Even in the shots you want DOF (Portrait), faking it tends to lead to a more adjustable shot where you can correct after the fact instead of being actually stuck in a inch-wide focus gap where any movement of the camera or subject results in out of focus capture.

Plus most photos are posted online in the 1-2MP size. Now cropping is a great extra 5% item, but for those who want really great photos they would have a lot to gain from a much larger sensor with a larger lens and lower MP count to get way less noise and better exposure times (I.e. The Sony A7R IV) Whereas dedicated full-frame equipment just trashes mobile results.

Good points but “medium format” is a term of art in sensor sizes, referring to sensors larger than 24x36mm, such as the sensor in the Fuji GFX.

We went through some “megapixel wars” in the past and it turns out, like you said, there are a lot of tradeoffs here and optimizing for high pixel count means you have to make unacceptable sacrifices elsewhere.

Oh yep, you are spot on. I wasn't referring to the sensor size standard but to a general medium of sensor sizes in mobile devices.

They also supply camera sensors to Nikon, one of the other big camera companies. Pretty sure they make Pentax's sensors as well.

It's strongly suspected, but not outright confirmed last I checked, that they supply some canon compact cameras too.

It should be noted that Sony does supply sensors to Nikon, but in Nikon's flagship cameras, the sensors are designed/specced by Nikon, and Sony build them sensors to that spec, and those sensors are not used by anyone else. It is definitely not the case that Sony is just grabbing an already-designed sensor off the shelf for Nikon. And it is pretty much agreed that the Nikon d850 has the best image quality, period. Sony isn't using that sensor in their own cameras, they are not allowed to.

I'm a litte skeptical (Pentax with Sony sensor owner FWIW). Here's DPReview on D850 vs a7RIII

> If anyone tells you that one camera is better than the other, for any particular activity based on image quality, you should laugh at them. In their face, if possible.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/4000816220/nikon-d850-vs-son...

Canon makes their own APS-c and fullframe sensors, but they use sony sensors in their smaller cameras, including their "premium compact" g7x and similar cameras, which use the imx183 or imx383 sensors, similar to the sony rx100 series.

Sort of. The high end pro market is barely starting to turn a page and use mirrorless bodies Like the Sony a9/a9II. Nikon and Canon are following a bit behind in mirrorless tech, but are still very much on top of the pro market (for now), mostly due to professional services, support, and glass.

Nikon and Canon both thought mirrorless was a toy and both of them made shitty cameras that are basically point and shoot with interchangable lenses.

As anyone that isn't living under a rock might know, the point and shoot markets are basically annihilated from existence. The professionals/pro-amateurs who care about image quality etc didn't like the Nikon 1 and EOS M.

Out of nowhere, Sony released the E mount Alpha lineup, which reached the #1 position in mirrorless cameras. They also released the Alpha 7, which was AFAIK the first full frame mirrorless (that means the imaging sensor is the same size as 35mm film. Most DSLRs used APS-C sized sensors, which are 1.5 times smaller than 35mm film). This was unprecedented because everyone thought mirrorless was basically a toy.

Both Nikon and Canon have realized their mistakes and recognized mirrorless is serious business and is the future. Nikon has scrapped the Nikon 1 line and started making Nikon Z, which is a super pro/prosumer oriented mirrorless lineup with a full frame sensor. Canon hasn't scrapped the old mirroless line but is pushing the RF mount lineup which is also full frame.

Sony was able to seize the market by being first to market by a long shot, not to mention the vertical integration from their imaging sensor division to deliver quality products. But now that Nikon and Canon entered the game with guns blazing, we'll see what happens to Sony.

One thing of note is that Sony has opened up the E mount spec and allowed 3rd parties to create lenses. As a result there's a fuck ton of 3rd party lenses (most of them of dubious quality, but some are excellent) with autofocus support, and not just from Tamron and Sigma.

It's a really interesting time to be in this hobby/profession IMO.

Just nitpicking: I would say, the Leica M9 was the first full-frame mirrorless, but it didn't have an electronic viewfinder.

The M9 isn't a mirrorless, it's a range finder camera (where the view finder sees through a separate optical light path than the main lens). A mirrorless is a DSLR (i.e. what you see through the view finder is exactly what you see through the lens) where the mirrored optical light path for the viewfinder has been replaced by a digital screen, hence mirrorless. Range finder cameras have existed for many decades and have never had mirrors, so they can't be converted to mirrorless in the way that term is now used. The defining characteristic of a mirrorless camera is its digital view finder that sees through the main lens. Without that it can be a range finder camera, a point-and-shoot, hell, even a smartphone, but not a mirrorless.

Well, the word mirrorless implies for me most of all, that it doesn't have a mirror, in contrast to a (D)SLR. Of course, most of the time, mirrorless is used for cameras which have exchangeable lenses and an electronic viewfinder. That is, why I explicitly stated in my post, that while not having a mirror, the M9 didn't have an EVF.

The M(240) then added the EVF, which also precedes the A7.

All of this is a bit of trivia, as most people are not aware of the Leica M series, so I thought it would add to the discussion. The A7 certainly was the first EVF-only mirrorless 35mm camera and was sold in far higher numbers than any digital M.

>Nikon and Canon both thought mirrorless was a toy and both of them made shitty cameras that are basically point and shoot with interchangable lenses.

I hope you realize that live-view shooting was essentially turning a dslr into a mirrorless one (caveat obvious OVF/EVF differences). Canon's dual pixel AF tech is still miles ahead of Sony's PDAF when it comes to low light focusing, and video AF. Each pixel on a canon sensor can be used for AF as well as imaging. Sony uses masked pixels which limits them because they canno't mask too many pixels for fear of IQ degradation, and having fewer AF pixels limits them in low-light focusing.

>Both Nikon and Canon have realized their mistakes and recognized mirrorless is serious business and is the future. Nikon has scrapped the Nikon 1 line and started making Nikon Z, which is a super pro/prosumer oriented mirrorless lineup with a full frame sensor. Canon hasn't scrapped the old mirroless line but is pushing the RF mount lineup which is also full frame.

Or rather, like mature businesses, they realized that they could keep making money with DSLRs and slowly milk them dry and then ramp up mirrorless and make money there too.

>One thing of note is that Sony has opened up the E mount spec and allowed 3rd parties to create lenses.

That's because Sony had no expertise in making high quality professional grade lenses and teamed up with Zeiss and others to help them get up to speed initially.

Most mirrorless had poor AF, crappy menus, poor ergonomics, low battery life, limited lens lineup and very expensive lenses.

Now, this is starting to change somehow but many, me included will wait a few more years because the cost of replacing many pro grade lenses is still very high.

A7III and A9II are the first good mirrorless that are finally pro-grade.

Camera aren't terribly expensive, but if you have 8 - 10 pro grade lenses which will cost on average $2000 to replace with E mount variants that might sound expensive. Particularly if you don't produce more money by switching to mirrorless and buying those lenses.

Yes, the existing lenses out in the field certainly kept Nikon and Canon in their position. Anyone with a large amount of lenses would stronly prefer to upgrade to a compatible camera.

This is what makes their move to mirrorless so tricky. While adapters for the existing lenses exist and work, in the long term you would want to upgrade many of your lenses to their mirrorless counterpart. Especially, if most new lens designs are made for the mirrorless lines.

A7ii isn't quite pro grade but if you want to spend $1000 or so for a full frame camera Canon and Nikon don't come close.

I got sick of the kit lens so I got a cheap used 50mm which can shoot tack sharp and I just unboxed a 90mms macro from the G series and will try it out today.

Is there any way to adapt the old lenses to the new body style?

Isn't Sigma making the best lens at the moment anyway?

That’s debatable. The Art line is really good from a technical perspective, but some people feel they don’t have “soul.” I think a bigger problem is that they have no concern for weight. For instance, their 105mm 1.4 is over 3 and a half pounds, and Nikons equivalent lens is a a little over 2 pounds.

That might not seem like a big deal but it certainly is when it’s hanging off of you for a full 12 hour wedding.

That said I still have a Sigma 35mm and 20mm in my kit.

Depends on how you define "best". Sigma has improved a lot in recent years and is generally great value, but Zeiss / Leica / Schneider / etc. are arguably still superior (at much higher prices).

I would call them “good” or “competitive”. There is no such thing as a “best” lens. It’s all about what you are looking for. My “best” lens for portraits is an old manual Pentax lens which is quite flawed but the images just look great.

Ehhhhh...

IDK what they're like nowadays, but Sigma has in the past had a reputation for a larger quality variance than others.

Sigma improved a lot, apprently they developed proprietary testing equipment involving their Foveon sensors.

Old Sigma lenses were often pretty bad, but the new Sigma Art lenses are amazing!

And they moonlight as dumbbells in a gym.

To be perfectly honest, my Canon EOS M6 Mk II has impressed me greatly with its performance.

Sony has had great sensors since they debuted back in like 2006. I’m pretty sure it may even be the same mount now on their mirrorless camera.

They had great sensors from when they bought Minolta

Glass, of course, is more important and expensive than anything else.

I’ve been envious of the Sony bodies, but the thought of giving up my Nikon glass meant I wasn’t moving. I’ve been thinking about picking up a z6, but I’m not sure it’s worth the price.

From what I've seen, the D780 is a very well rounded 'best of both worlds' body. And I, having tasted the amazing quality and ease of use of video on the Z50, paired with forever-battery and very good focus system on the D750, am tempted to pick one up.

Is there no adapter?

There's always the dumb adapter that allows you to use without AF (and possibly lose aperture for some lenses) but I think there's like a 300 dollar one (nikon F to sony FE) that lets you use autofocus and whatnot.

But the general consensus is to get rid of your old glass if you're switching to mirrorless because the AF performance with adapters is on the "it barely works enough to not call it unusable" level.

This is a factor in me holding off from switching to mirrorless. Currently using the Nikon D50 which is dated now, and a handful of lenses which I am loath to give up on.

D50 is a great camera. I used one for years until moisture got inside while shooting pics of an incoming hurricane. I only by weather sealed bodies now :)

That's why I sold all if my AF Nikon F lenses and bought just two Panasonic lenses, the 40/2 and 14/2.8. The 14 will be replaced with a Leica 15/1.7 if I ever get serious about photography again. Until then I'm using an old Ricoh GRD 3, which is still amazing - no distorsion, great photo quality, great lens, stellar ergonomics.

Yes, there is. It comes for free (depending on source) with Nikon mirrorless cameras.

The F to Z mount adapter is ok from what I’ve read. The cross brand adapters usually have a lot of gotchas though.

I see videos from a lot of wildlife photographers who are using their big 600f4 lenses on Z6/Z7. It seems that adapter works really well.

Great to know since it’ll be awhile before they have lenses to replace my F mount ones.

Sure, you can get a $500 adapter to mount Nikon glass on a Sony body. There may be advantages (you already own the lenses, it throws a shitload of light onto a small area of the sensor) but there are also disadvantages (running at less than half of the resolution the camera body offers, fully manual operation). I personally wouldn't choose this route for a fancy body like the A9, but I think it's a reasonable choice when using a cheaper MFT body.

For now. Sony's recent 600mm f/4 paired with a a9II and animal eye-af is something that will tempt wildlife and sports photographers. It's unrivalled.

Services, yeah, Canon are miles ahead but one step at a time.

I'm a Nikon shooter, mainly wildlife. If I was starting over today I don't know which system I'd buy into.

No mention of Fuji here? I love me my X-T20.

Well Fuiji seems to be doing great too but I didnt mention them because they arent one of the top manufacturers for professional cameras at the time. I personally have both an a7ii and xt2, and I much prefer the fuji.

Been wondering about switching to X-Pro2 or X-T2 from Sony a7ii. I can't afford to own both. Any thoughts, or just keep the full frame sony? I don't have any native lenses for either and just adapt analog film lenses

As a new Fuji x-t30 owner myself, the camera controls just make sense (unlike PASM) and the shooting experience is so much fun.

I love my Fuji because they have better and more intuitive physical controls. Makes it a lot easier to shoot outdoors with gloves.

IIRC Fuji uses Sony sensors.

Correct, Fuji sensors are made by Sony and are mostly the same (including the use of Dr-Pix adaptive pixel capacitance), except that Fuji has a nonstandard Bayer pattern.

I think just about everything else about the Fuji cameras is markedly better than Sony's mirrorless offerings. I occasionally wish I had a full-frame sensor, I suppose, but those are very overrated by prosumers.

i also sometimes wish i had full frame, but as I understand it it would also mean heavier lenses.

it would not. I think lens weigh comes entirely from the design and speed of the lens. The designs don't vary that much so I would t consider it. Take the full frame canon 70-200 f4, it weighs 760g, vs the 1.5 crop fuji 50-140 f2.8 which weighs 995g. They are nearly identical in aperture size and focal length, and will produce similar looking images for comparisons sake. All that to say, the amount of glass used is what will determine the size and weight of a lens, not the sensor size. There are many other factors but in general for crop bs full frame there is little difference.

I’m holding out for a price drop on the x100v.

> mirrorless formats

Sorry, what is this and why is it revolutionary? (Why did Nikon and Canon miss it?)

Leica invented 35mm(135) format compact camera, and soon after added a rangefinder framing/focusing system. Nikon cloned it, then replaced the viewfinder with Single Lens Reflex system, a system that uses a mirror behind the lens and a prism in shape of pentagram, forward of viewfinder, to directly view through the lens to frame/focus.

Those were introduced in 1930s and 1950s respectively. Since the launch of Nikon F in 1959 until some time in 2010s the viewfinder technology didn't change. Means shutter became metal and electronic, autofocus invented, man went to the Moon and back, digital CCD/CMOS photography came around, Sun goes down but mirror and prism SLR technology of 1950s just kept on.

One of the reasons why mirrorless didn't appear sooner is because LCDs or OLEDs viewfinder suck(ed). They used to be in SVGA or XGA resolutions, refresh at 30-60Hz or less, few hundreds ms late, dim, power hungry and whatnot. Wasn't so advantageous in terms of weight or cost as well. Optical quality of SLR viewfinder never disappointed its users on the other hand. It is and always had been a joy to be able to just look into it and see through the lens, especially when films take hours to develop.

Sony, however, knew that no one uses viewfinder in a point and shoot digital cameras, or no one has any problems without SLR viewfinder in video cameras, dad on holidays and professional broadcasters alike. So after they merged camera division from Konica Minolta in 2006, they just walked out and spoke out the obvious. Camera nerds were shocked, I was shocked, so were Nikon and Canon. Leica may have been laughing, Zeiss was happy collecting licensing fees. I was skeptical, and I could verify it feels very disappointing looking into EVF. But Sony knew it ain't a problem and it wasn't.

Nikon and Canon probably thought the quality of EVF never satisfies professional photographers, from their narrow expertise.

> I was skeptical, and I could verify it feels very disappointing looking into EVF.

My reaction is the opposite. I always felt disappointed by how primitive the optical view finder on modern cameras is versus electronic ones. It doesn't get the light levels right and it can barely show you any relevant information; there needs to be a separate 7-segment display on the body showing pertinent information. How primitive!

EVFs, on the contrast, show you everything you need to know right in the viewfinder (including advanced features like histograms, zebra stripes, etc., that an optical viewfinder could never possibly do).

I think good EVFs were available since about 2013. I compared the optical viewfinder of the Canon 5D with the electronic of the Olympus E-M1, and the EVF of the Olympus offered an equally large image, that also was brighter if the outside light wasn't very strong. The only complaint might be the limited resolution, but since then much higher resolution viewfinders have become available. And basically any optical viewfinder for smaller than 35mm formats is inferior, because the amount of light in the smaller format makes building of a large and bright optical viewfinder basically impossible

The big advantage of EVFs is that it can do so much more than an optical viewfinder. You can enlarge it, display focus peaking, but most of all, you get a preview of the image you would take - especially previewing the exposure is very helpful. And of course, if you want to do video, the viewfinder of a SLR wouldn't be usable at all.

>Nikon cloned it, then replaced the viewfinder with Single Lens Reflex system

As far as I know Nikon started off making Contax clones, not Leica clones. Canon did Leica clones, though. Keep in mind that Leicas up until the M3 didn't have a combined viewfinder/rangefinder. That was an innovation from Zeiss first used in the Contax II.

And there's been quite a few SLRs before the Nikon F, it was just Nikon that made it so solid and efficient that made professional photographers switch from using a rangefinder to SLR.

Mirrorless is electrically and mechanially a MUCH MUCH MUCH simpler design (SLR is essentially two cameras in one, with the pentaprism allowing light to go to a second sensor used for autofocus, and also to your eye) and it has a lot of compromises in complexity, reliability, and performance.

Mirrorless allows the camera to use the image sensor itself to do all the work. That means autofocus can be much better, using every pixel on the sensor for autofocus. It means you can run computer vision software in real time to do fancy things, like finding out if there are eyes in the image - most likely, you want the eyes to be in focus. You can focus in near darkness, when it's too dark for you to see. And other stuff.

The biggest downsides are 1) the electronic viewfinder, these are not as nice for most people, but with the big caveat that they do allow you to frame an image in near total darkness where an SLR wouldn't allow you to do that and 2) the big one is battery life, it is 5-10X worse with mirrorless than with SLR.

A major upside of the electronic viewfinder is the live depth of field and exposure preview.

As somebody who wears glasses, the biggest advantage of mirrorless is that you're not forced to hold the camera up to your eye.

As someone who wears glasses, I can use the optical viewfinder on my Nikon D850 without specs but need my glasses to use liveview, e.g. when shooting video. The D850 lets you set the viewfinder close to the prescription of your glasses.

DSLRs have live previews on the screens on their back, so that at least you don't need mirrorless for.

I like using the viewfinder though, and I like digital ones over optical ones.

Yeah but until much more recently, using the live preview on a DSLR meant you lost your fast AF.

Nikon and Canon's flagship products are DSLRs, which are cameras that have an analog viewfinder and a moving mirror inside to redirect the image to either the viewfinder or sensor. Mirrorless cameras use an LCD viewfinder instead.

The biggest things holding back mirrorless technology previously was battery life and autofocus technology. I am not sure why Nikon and Canon didn't invest more into mirrorless technology sooner, and I'm no photography expert, but I think they were just too entrenched in the DSLR technologies they pioneered.

They are in the same trap as traditional car manufacturers are with combustion engine cars. The profits are in the established technology, yet the writing is on the wall for the new technology. You know where the market is going eventually, but for sure you don't want to disrupt your current revenue stream until the new technology is really ready to replace the old one.

For many years, basically Nikon and Canon split up the "professional" market between each other. They already had this position with analog SLRs, and continued after the transition to digital. The reason is a mix of having very good cameras, a large lens setup, especially considering the more exotic/expensive lenses mostly used by professionals and most importantly, with the service organizations. At each olympics, they would have large service centers on-site, for repair and exchange. And also outside of these events, they have services networks which enable a professional to get the equipment serviced/exchanged with loaners in minimal time, which is a very obvious benefit. Which basically prevented other brands to make a huge inroads in the professional markets.

So their profits were driven by the established systems. They were milking this cash cow and consequently were late to the mirrorless game. Their recent offerings are nice, especially Canon has some very interesting lenses for their new mirrorless system, but even for those companies it takes a whole lot of time to have a remotely complete lens offering.

It might also be worth while to look beyond the 35mm format. In 2013 Olympus brought the OMD E-M1 to the market, which was possibly the first mirrorless camera, not only matching but in a few aspecs exceeding the performance of comparable DSLRs. This shows, how much Canon and Nikon are lagging behind.

”They are in the same trap as traditional car manufacturers are with combustion engine cars. The profits are in the established technology, yet the writing is on the wall for the new technology. You know where the market is going eventually, but for sure you don't want to disrupt your current revenue stream until the new technology is really ready to replace the old one.”

I think that’s it. But it seems they are catching up very quickly now. The upcoming EOS R5 looks like a very good camera.

Yes, they have good cameras on offer, but you could see, that Sony, Olympus and Panasonic have a few years more experience to polish their features. The big challange will be to switch their customer base over, that will be a long process.

> I am not sure why Nikon and Canon didn't invest more into mirrorless technology sooner, and I'm no photography expert, but I think they were just too entrenched in the DSLR technologies they pioneered.

You nailed it on the head for the most part.

Nikon had a mirrorless camera in the J1 series, which had some very nifty features but was just an absurdly expensive system for what you got (especially since it is basically a dead end, proprietary platform.)

Canon did a bit better with their first MILCs, but they weren't amazing. At the time they were introduced Canon suffered from a lack of on-sensor Phase Detection AF, and Contrast detection systems weren't as fast as they are now.

I mean, a big issue is glass; While there are exceptions to this, you can't just re-use an existing lens design on a mirrorless without making the thing longer than it needs to be (Which looks off on a Mirrorless.) Which means that Nikon/Canon can't just release the 18-55 EFAF Mark 10 lens.

Designing proper lenses takes time and money. I mean, the first few years I had an E-mount, the pickings were slim for lenses, while the a6000 was a good start it wasn't till the A7II and A7RII with their ability to do usable PDAF with adapted lenses that the platform felt safe to pick up.

But is that really the plan, to build an entirely new assortment of lenses, to avoid making the bidy wider than needed? It seems like the benefit with mirrorless would mostly be other things than size...?

There’s an added benefit - shorter flange distance/ larger mount diameter. Nikon especially went with a large mount. A larger mount = potential for faster glass.

But also think about it from a marketing perspective - even now most people buying cameras aren’t professionals. A big bulky camera right next to a svelte one in a store will look dated. That said Sony went too far with it, in my opinion. A nice grip is important for professionals.

I've been trying to keep up with all the new photography concepts in this thread, but "Faster Glass" is throwing me off?

How can glass lenses be "faster?" Allow you to shoot with a faster shutterspeed?

Faster is taken to mean that a lens has a larger maximum aperture, meaning more light gets in, so you can use a faster shutter speed, and hence get less motion blurring. Non-intuitively, because depth of field gets smaller as the aperture increases, faster lenses can also offer better separation of the subject from foreground / background features

I think that's correct (because it lets more light reach the sensor due to the bigger aperture, so less exposure is necessary)

I think at least Nikon has caught up in the mirrorless area. Nikon's new Z-mount has some advantages over Sony's E-mount, too.

Nikon and Canon have long used Sony sensors.

For purely photo Nikon has gone from “no reason to exist anymore” to “tolerable”. But if you care about video it’s hard not to view mirrorless as a two horse race between Sony and Panasonic. (Sony is much better at the full frame/high end in a lot of ways but Panasonic offers a ton of value for the money; my G9 is a tremendous performer for both photo and video.)