[DeathRay2K]

Every element the light interacts before hitting the sensor degrades the quality in some small way. But losing the mirror doesn't really improve optics significantly. It's more about reducing cost and complexity in manufacturing, moving things like autofocus into software. The benefits to the consumer are quieter shooting and a lighter body.

[Arelius]

Yes, losing the mirror doesn’t really improve optics, however removing the mirror and related mechanism does allow one to bring the lens closer to the focal plane, which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements. And makes everything smaller and lighter as you allude to.

[ip26]

which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements.

Sort of. The diameter of the front element is predetermined, a function of the sensor size, focal length, and aperture. Mirrorless cannot escape this.

But, the shorter distance from sensor to lens does simplify the design of a good wide angle. Sadly, wide angles were never the big heavy lenses in the first place.

The whole smaller & lighter thing is not a lie but pretty oversold. Some of the RF glass is actually bigger and heavier than the equivalent EF glass.

[chiefgeek]

Heh. You've never carried a body with a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 or a Canon 11-23 f/2.8. They are beasts! But yes, the teles are generally the heavy ones.

[joliu]

Doesn't a DSLR work by moving the mirror out of the way of the sensor when taking an image?

[Baeocystin]

You are correct. That motion of the mirror itself is responsible for most of the noise, and some wobble of the camera as well.

It's a trade-off, though. Seeing the actual image through the lens, and not a digital representation, which is what you get with a mirrorless system, has its benefits.

[nomel]

> which is what you get with a mirrorless system, has its benefits

I never found those benefits. What would you say they are?

Early on, the problem was mirrorless were slow in autofocus, and they had relatively terrible EV quality. Now they have better autofocus than mirrorless, and more importantly, with the very high resolution EV displays they have now [1], what you see is exactly what you end up getting. You don't have to guess about anything anymore, like what's going to blow out, which is fantastic. What you see in an optical viewfinder with your eye is not what your sensor sees is going to portray. I don't see any benefit to optical viewfinders at this point.

[1] 5.7MP OLED EV!: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1494679-REG/sony_ilce...

[Baeocystin]

The true colors of what you're shooting, the true dynamic range, and the ability to see to edges of the focal plane with greater clarity. What you see in a mirrorless camera has already gone through a great deal of processing to approximate what you'd see naturally with an SLR system.

Which is fine for what it is! If you aren't shooting in a studio, the reduced mass of equivalent lenses with mirrorless systems is a big quality of life upgrade all on its own, for example. But the color representation just isn't there, and it isn't going to be until we get better color in our display systems. It's being worked on, of course, but there's a long way to go.

[nomel]

> The true colors of what you're shooting

I don't understand this. The EV displays are calibrated. It's what you're going to get on your high end monitor when you get home. Eyes do not work like camera sensors, so I don't see how this is a plus. White balance being a great example.

> the true dynamic range,

How can your eye tell you this though? Unless your'e doing HDR/exposure stacking, dynamic range from the perspective of the sensor is all you're going to get. With the EV, you get clipping/black indicators, and even a histogram. I'm never wondering if I'm going to blow out the sky or crush some details in shadows anymore. I can see if I am, without having to snap then preview.

> the ability to see to edges of the focal plane with greater clarity.

I don't understand this at all. The new EVs give you 100% crop (with some slightly reduced zoom so it fits), with complete clarity edge to edge.

I would suggest giving a new high end EV another try.

[Baeocystin]

Perhaps I'm not doing a good job of explaining. Let me try again.

1. The color space of the EV's display (and even the wide-gamut monitors available for desktop use) do no fully encompass the colors we can see. https://i2.wp.com/digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/... for a diagrammatic example of common colorspaces vs. what our eyes are capable of perceiving. In particular, the greens and purples are abbreviated, and I prefer composing with the true colors in my eyepiece.

2. Knowing the condition of the light before it hits the sensor lets me compose more accurately. If I'm looking at the true light, I can tell at a glance if there is detail worth working to preserve in the highlights or shadows (by using a split neutral density filter, for example, to bring the sky brightness down some) or not.

3. I'm not talking about edge-to-edge clarity. I'm referring to the depth of the focal plane, and the rate of falloff. If you're shooting with a very wide aperture before infinity-focus distance, the plane is going to be very narrow, and seeing the rate of the falloff is easier when it isn't pixelated.

Hope that helps.

[jjeaff]

Yes. With mirrorless, you have the advantage of the image continuously hitting the sensor. So you see in your viewfinder more or less what the sensor is seeing. On a dslr, you are seeing a facsimile of the end result.