Question to a psychologist 

What is the difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera. Which is better: DSLR or mirrorless, what is the difference between them

Hello! I'm in touch with you, Timur Mustaev. Photographers never tire of discussing different types cameras, discussing their advantages and disadvantages. We will not bypass this issue either.

The article will logically include three sections: about SLRs, about system devices, and at the end, the pluses of both. Thus, the reader himself will be able to form his own opinion about cameras and understand for himself what is better than a SLR or system camera.

In one of the previous articles, we analyzed in more detail, . We won't stop there today.

Any digital camera is equipped with main and auxiliary elements, the coordinated work of which ultimately forms the image.

In order for the camera to fulfill its purpose, it cannot do without a body and an optical part with a lens system. There are several important blocks in the case: shutter; sensor; processor, etc., and, what is significant for us, the viewfinder.

It's in in general terms about photographic equipment, and now more on our topic.

SLR device

In a reflex camera great importance has a mirror located closer to the shutter and directly coupled to the eyepiece. The signal arriving at the mirror is reflected and hits the ground glass, the converging lens and the pentaprism. Only after that we see the image through the visor.

Thanks to a complex device, an initially blurred and inverted picture can be observed as normal, corresponding to reality.

Such a viewfinder is called a mirror, like the device itself. I think it became obvious that DSLRs are complex in design and can be an order of magnitude more expensive than other models. Note that we only touched on one detail in DSLRs!

Specifics of system devices

Olympus, as well as Panasonic, initiated the production of compact models of cameras that refused to use mirrors in them. System devices are devices with a modular design, including a core and replaceable elements.

In system devices, light passes through the lens and immediately hits the light-sensitive device. The viewfinder here, respectively, is not a mirror, but a telescopic or electronic (additional display).

In the latter version, the camera's processor reads information from the matrix and displays it on the LCD in Live View mode, which is also available on DSLRs.

Despite the peculiarities of system cameras, most of them have good matrices, it is possible to make additional equipment. If earlier such cameras were single-lens, now this limitation has been overcome.

Comparison of cameras: focus on the pros

We have considered the basic concepts, it remains only to talk about the advantages that cameras have. First, let's focus on mirrors:

  1. Reliability. Yes, SLR photographic equipment has impressive dimensions, which can be inconvenient for the photographer, but still it is more durable and perfectly protected from dust and moisture.
  2. Frame. Body reflex camera Designed to fit comfortably in the hand. For a good grip, they often have small rubber nozzles.
  3. Accessories. Of course, here we can find everything that will be useful to us during filming: all kinds of filters and devices, external flash etc. And not an insignificant fact - big choice lenses.
  4. Lots of features. What can not be found in SLR cameras! Any genre of filming and the embodiment of bold ideas can be available to you, the main thing is to choose wisely.
  5. big matrix, which allows you to take photos and shoot videos in high resolution.
  6. Working hours. A DSLR on its battery can last much longer than a mirrorless camera.
  7. Price benefit. SLR cameras come in different levels of professionalism. And depending on your needs, you can buy both a very expensive and sophisticated, and a budget option that combines reasonable cost and quality.
  8. Focusing. Users note the work of the focus, that it allows you to quickly concentrate on the object. Also, phase autofocus is typical only for DSLRs.
  9. Optics in the viewfinder. As mentioned above, in SLR cameras, respectively, a mirror visor. Only this type of viewfinder displays the picture without negative changes and without delays.

You can guess that the opposite features will be highlighted in system devices.

Let's talk about them:

  • Small size and lightness. These properties allow system devices to be carried effortlessly and taken with you on trips. In addition, they will always be at hand, and you may not need a special bag.
  • Control. System cameras are more like “soap dishes” and lack so many photographic features compared to SLRs, however, everything is easy in them. Many beginners pay attention to such camera options because of the ease of handling them.
  • Matrix, only slightly inferior in terms of quality to mirror models.
  • Low price. Mirrorless cameras are often cheaper. Now progress does not stand still and more expensive lines appear. They remain the same compactness, and the functions are significantly expanded: fully manual settings, shooting video of maximum resolution, etc.
  • Lack of a mirror. On the one hand, this is a minus, but on the other hand, due to the fact that the device is simpler, there is simply nothing to break in it. SLR cameras themselves often suffer from their mechanism: during operation, small vibrations from moving parts occur, but nevertheless affecting the photograph.
  • Replaceable components. Photo flashes, rings, etc. available for system cameras. It is possible to change lenses, however, the choice is not as wide as that of DSLRs.

As you can see, both mirror and system models have their merits. After analyzing them and deciding on the goals of purchasing a camera, you can understand which camera is best for you.

That's all for today. Goodbye my blog readers! Subscribe and do not miss anything important and interesting. Share with friends.

All the best to you, Timur Mustaev.

Those who would like to buy a digital camera have repeatedly asked us the same question: "?". Today, there is such an assortment of various photographic equipment on the market that resolving a dispute is only half the battle. There are also ultra-compact superzoom cameras with fixed lenses that can also intervene in this debate. But even if you do not consider advanced compacts, then after spending, the buyer will have to plunge into the problems of choosing a specific model, and there are their own characteristics. In general, a difficult and ambiguous question. To understand Which is better mirrorless or DSLR Let's take a look at their main differences.

What is mirrorless? mirrorless, like a SLR camera has enough a large number of terms used for their names. And, unfortunately, there is no single standard. Such devices may be referred to as mirrorless camera, single lens system camera, MILC camera, EVIL camera, ILC, ACIL. All English abbreviations, in fact, describe the same thing - the absence of a mirror, interchangeable optics, the presence of an electronic viewfinder. We will not confuse an already complex dispute and will use the most common - mirrorless.

How does it work mirrorless? Yes, very simple. Let many say that a mirrorless camera and an ordinary digital compact camera are different cameras, but the principle of operation (and only the principle) is the same for them. Light, passing through the lens system in the lens, falls directly on the photosensitive element (in digital cameras - the matrix). In a mirrorless camera, a pentaprism stands in the way of the light flux, which redirects the flux to the optical viewfinder for parallax-free viewing of the frame.

Parallax-free sighting - this is such a property of the camera, which allows the photographer to see in advance exactly what will be fixed by the matrix, without any distortion. Previously, when cameras were still film cameras, the viewfinder axis and the lens axis did not coincide a bit and there were certain distortions. To avoid this, a pentaprism with a mirror was invented, redirecting the exact display to the optical viewfinder. But with the development of digital cameras, it became possible to solve the problem of parallax by previewing the image directly from the sensor.

And now important point related to how the transition from film to digital photography was carried out. There were also film compact (with parallax due to viewfinder shift) cameras, and SLR (without parallax) film cameras. Both there and there they put a matrix, just different in technical characteristics. After all, compacts should be smaller and cheaper, why do they need more powerful and expensive matrices. If today a digital camera were invented right away, then pentaprisms and mirrors might not exist at all. It's all the fault of the gradual development of technical evolution of technology.

In compact cameras and mirrorless cameras, sighting occurs using an electronic viewfinder, which, in fact, is the display on the back of the camera. In the mirror - with the help optical viewfinder or all the same display in LiveView mode. By the way, according to statistics, those who use budget and semi-professional DSLRs shoot in LiveView mode up to 80% of cases, i.e. don't use a mirror at all.

The use of an optical viewfinder is resorted to in three cases. When shooting when the screen is difficult to see, such as in sunny weather due to glare; when using DSLRs that simply do not have a mode live view(until 2006, all DSLRs were like this); and out of habit. There is also the practice of using the optical viewfinder and turning off LiveView to conserve battery power and focus faster. And here, of course, the DSLR outperforms its counterpart.

The quality of the display on the electronic viewfinder (more precisely, the display) is slightly worse than that of the optics. Resolution of any display until it reached the maximum limits accessible to the human eye. Optics does not have such a problem, because. there the eye sees exactly that picture, as if a person were looking at the object directly. There is also a certain delay in the display of movement on the electronic display. But these problems will be technically solved in the near future.

It is worth mentioning another important point, which comparison of DSLR and mirrorless, gives a certain advantage to the first type. These are different principles for implementing auto focus. There are two of them. In a DSLR, when shooting using a pentaprism, special sensors of the focusing system receive the light flux directly from the object. This autofocus is called phase.

In mirrorless cameras (as well as any compacts) there is no way to use your own sensors for autofocusing (you can’t put them in front of the matrix). Therefore, focusing is performed programmatically, analyzing the image falling on the matrix. This autofocus system is called contrast. So, phase autofocus is much faster and a little more accurate than contrast autofocus. Therefore, according to this parameter, the DSLR wins.

Now the camera dimensions and weight. The pentaprism and mirror system itself makes the camera larger and heavier in weight. This is both good and bad. On a larger body, you can place more controls, the grip is more comfortable, more powerful components, batteries can be placed inside. Mirrorless because of their compactness forced to use software interface control, fight for every gram and millimeter inside. Even the transition to touch screens is still losing to the traditional buttons and wheels of DSLRs. True, much depends on habits. On the other hand, carrying a large and heavy camera, especially on the road, is also inconvenient. Compactness is a huge advantage that you can not argue with.

The next thing to pay attention to comparison of DSLR and mirrorless, this is the moment of shooting. When a DSLR is in operation, at the moment the shutter is released, the pentaprism with the mirror is mechanically lifted, and this is additional vibration and banal noise. Of course, not the worst thing that can happen, but sometimes causes problems. Mirrorless have no such problems. True, some people love a DSLR just for this sound. But this more question from the category of psychology than technology.

Next is the matrix itself. The more powerful and larger in physical size it is, the higher the quality of the picture. Everything is simple and clear. Of course, one can start a philosophical discussion about where this race for megapixels will lead us, but we will leave that for other articles. Today, the matrices used in DSLRs and the matrices of mirrorless cameras are practically compared in terms of features . Yes, mirrorless cameras do not yet have full-format matrices or full frames. Nobody argues here. Professional shooting of the highest quality image is possible only on DSLRs. But these are high-end cameras costing thousands of dollars, which are needed by a very small number of professional photographers. The rest is all the same. Yes, and some brands started talking about plans to release a full-length mirrorless camera soon.

Now about lenses. The camera has such a parameter as working segment . This is the distance between the extreme lens of the lens and the matrix. For mirrorless cameras, it is smaller, therefore, the dimensions of the lenses and their weight are also less than for DSLRs. But there are just very few lenses designed for mirrorless cameras for one or another mount or matrix form factor. The choice of lenses for DSLRs is much wider. True, this issue can be solved by using various adapters. This is not to say that it is simple and convenient, but it is possible. In addition, the line of lenses for mirrorless cameras is constantly expanding and over time the problem will go away.

We spent brief analysis those points that are the main differences and that are important to keep in mind when deciding whether Which is better, mirrorless or DSLR?. But that's not all. Conducting comparison of DSLR and mirrorless it is better to talk about some specific models. So it is much easier to determine the advantages or disadvantages that are more important FOR YOURSELF. Do not forget about such a parameter as the prices of mirrorless and SLR cameras. Here, too, complete "anarchy". Today you can buy a SLR camera that costs no more than an advanced ultra-compact, and the price of a mirrorless camera can be higher than a semi-professional DSLR camera. Again, it's best to compare specific models.

Conclusions. Like it or not, but Fotix readers are still waiting for an answer to the question, Which is better, mirrorless or DSLR? Or who won the fight. Let's express our purely subjective opinion. We will be grateful if you join the discussion in the comments and express your opinion in defense of your favorite technique.

  1. There is no single winner for all occasions. It all depends on what tasks and conditions you need a camera for;
  2. From the point of view of professional photography with obtaining images of the highest quality, for reportage shooting, for the most complete control over the process of using accurate manual settings, to obtain artistic effects, it would be better to buy a SLR camera;
  3. For 90% of the tasks faced by advanced and novice amateur photographers, as well as those who use photographic equipment for commercial purposes, but are not a Reuters photojournalist, either camera will do. The ideal is to have both. The case when the final price decides a lot;
  4. If compactness and weight are important, especially when shooting outside the studio and relatively stationary objects, of course it is better to buy a mirrorless camera;
  5. To get good pictures for your home photo archive, do not go into the technical details of photography or create artwork, in general, you should pay attention to compact pseudo-reflex cameras or simply compacts with a fixed lens.

And the most important thing. Do not try to buy a camera for ages. It won't be possible to predict. Choose based solely on current tasks and opportunities. Progress does not stand still, and tomorrow the camera may change beyond recognition. But, whatever your choice, you will find any sample of photographic equipment on our website.

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. Approximation of these two graphs suggests that literally in next year parity will come, and further mirrorless cameras in the world will be sold more than SLRs.

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! SLR systems do not allow you to constantly control the depth of field, which is very important in 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 Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk2 - so generally 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 operation - 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, entry-level and mid-level DSLRs are 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 benefits ... 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 said 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 take an extra battery and / or portable Charger- 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. AT 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, this stage development mirrorless is a camera for shooting cats, for a home photo session 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.

I don't quite understand how, well, let's say, sony camera A7R II, which has absolutely the same matrix as in Nikon D810A, to which you can fasten good Zeiss optics or through the Metabones adapter the same lenses from Nikon, how can this camera shoot, 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 tell you 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 approached 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 whether they will have 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 grip of the camera is important for size is bad for me.I have 2 programmable shooting modes on one camera and 3 modes on another, 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 specific 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 real existing facts. I'm having a hard time understanding how it can't be obvious? =:)

In the recent past, a SLR camerawas the only option for a person who was going to do photography professionally. The alternative was a "soap dish", which looked completely frivolous.

However, there are now a huge number of mirrorless cameras on the market that can take pictures. High Quality and, moreover, not worth a lot of money, like "DSLRs".

Conservative photographers look at new technology with obvious disdain, arguing that professionally shooting without a mirror is nonsense. But are mirrorless cameras really that bad?

What is the main difference?

A reflex camera has a viewfinder, the principle of which is based on a mirror. Such a viewfinder is called an optical viewfinder (OVF). The mirror is placed in the device at an angle of 45 degrees, so that the photographer can see the real image, not subjected to digitization. It is called parallax-free sighting.

Through the lens, the image falls on a mirror, which reflects on pentaprism located on the top of the machine. The task of the pentaprism is to flip the image so that its orientation is normal. Without a pentaprism, the photographer would see the picture upside down.

Mirrorless devices do not have mirrors inside - they are equipped with electronic viewfinders (EVF). The photographer sees the image, which has previously been digitally processed, and can immediately adjust the brightness, contrast and other parameters. Parallax-free sighting is not available to the user of such a camera.

"Mirrorless": better or worse than a SLR?

To understand the advantages and disadvantages of each type of camera, you need to consider their main characteristics.

Dimensions

Let's start with the obvious - with dimensions. A mirror device, as a rule, has a massive body and a block protruding from above - it contains a pentaprism. Since mirrorless cameras do not have this block, they will be lighter and more compact. A mirrorless camera can be hidden in a pants pocket, while a “DSLR” will definitely have to be worn around the neck. In terms of dimensions, we fix the defeat of mirror devices.

Over time, manufacturers manage to produce less and less bulky "DSLRs". Mirrorless devices have the opposite trend - they are equipped with more and more functions, so they "fatten". The difference in dimensions is likely to be erased by the hand of technological progress in the coming years.

autofocus

Mirror devices are different phase focusing - special sensors are used, which are located next to the pentaprism and examine the luminous flux.

Mirrorless devices use contrast autofocus. This means that focusing is carried out by software after analyzing the image that hit the matrix. Mirrorless cameras focus much more slowly than DSLRs, and not as accurately.

In some modern mirrorless models, phase sensors are installed on the matrices, but in terms of focusing speed, these devices are still inferior to DSLRs.

Lenses

Since DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have different designs, they also need different lenses.

There are much more lenses for SLR cameras - the owner of one of these devices will definitely not be limited in choice.

The owner of the "mirrorless", however, this should not be embarrassing, because he can get adapter.

With the help of an adapter, it will be possible to install a lens from a “DSLR” on a device without a mirror. Whether this decision turns out to be reasonable is up to the photographer to decide - his compact “mirrorless” with a large lens from a SLR camera will most likely look ridiculous and be somewhat awkward to handle due to the shifted center of gravity.

Battery life

Using the electronic viewfinder and display requires constant power consumption, and due to the compact size of the "mirrorless" it cannot be equipped with a high-capacity battery. Therefore, the owner of such a device is recommended to carry an additional battery with you everywhere.

Due to the mechanical design of the viewfinder, the SLR does not need a large supply of milliamps. A budget SLR camera is capable of snapping from 800 shots on a single battery charge, and Nikon D4 - even 3,000 shots. On the “mirrorless” it will be possible to take a maximum of 300 photos - then the device will require recharging.

The low battery capacity of a mirrorless camera is unlikely to be a problem for an urban photographer (300 shots is quite a lot), but the traveler will definitely have to conserve battery.

The moment of shooting

At the moment the shutter is released on the "reflex camera", the pentaprism and the mirror are raised - a mechanical operation, accompanied by vibration and noise. Some photographers find the trembling of the device in their hands uncomfortable, while others, on the contrary, like to "feel life" inside the device. A DSLR is noisier than a mirrorless camera, but it's not clear whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage.

Some manufacturers have come as close as possible to eliminating shutter noise in their SLRs. For example, modern Nikon devices have a "quiet mode" - noise is reduced by slowing down the movement of the mirror.

Matrix

The larger the matrix in terms of physical dimensions, the higher the quality of shooting will be - especially in low light conditions. A large matrix with a lack of light provides a shallow depth of field and a rather pleasant bokeh (background blur).

"Mirrorless" in this case suffer from their own compact dimensions - as a rule, tiny matrices are installed in them.

Full-format matrices (full frames) are not yet used in mirrorless cameras– and this is one of the key arguments of the SLR supporters. However, does a novice photographer need such a matrix - big question. Usually, full-frame DSLRs are used only in exceptional shooting situations.

Price

Mounting mirror mechanisms is not an easy task. "SLR" includes a lot of moving components - as a result, the assembly of the device must be as accurate as possible. Creating a "reflex camera" is a laborious process, and therefore the cost of the device is high.

A mirrorless device with approximately the same characteristics will have a more liberal cost, but this device cannot be bought for nothing either. "Mirrorless" - so far relatively New Product on the market, and new products always require large marketing expenses. Ultimately, the buyer of a mirrorless camera has to overpay - for the manufacturer's advertising.

Other characteristics

A photographer choosing between a “DSLR” and a mirrorless device needs to keep in mind the following aspects:

  • Reliability. "SLRs", despite the fragility of the elements, are generally more reliable - many of them have dust and moisture protection. If the goal of the photographer is to shoot parkour classes or “hunt with a photo gun” for wild animals in the desert, you should refuse to buy a “mirrorless camera”.
  • Shooting speed limit. After each shutter release, the mirror in the "reflex camera" rises. The operation is incredibly fast, but still requires a certain amount of time. The record holder among the "DSLRs" in this regard is the Nikon D4. It is capable of shooting up to 11 frames per second. This actually means that the mirror goes up and down in just 1 second as many as 11 times! In slow motion, the high-speed frame change on Nikon looks like this:

However, mirrorless owners will not be impressed by the speed of the Nikon D4. Even the average mirrorless camera can shoot at 8 to 10 frames per second.

  • Air movement. Due to the movement of the mirror inside the camera, air moves - and with it dust and dirt. You have to clean mirror devices much more often.

conclusions

Buying a SLR camera is advisable if:

  1. The photographer is going to shoot sporting events. “Mirrorless” is not able to focus fast enough, and therefore is not suitable for this task.
  2. The photographer is a naturalist and will shoot wildlife. “SLR” is able to live for a long time without an outlet - “in wild environment" it is important.
  3. The camera will be used for shooting parkour and other extreme activities. From the point of view of the design, the “SLR” is stronger than the “mirrorless”.
  4. The photographer is engaged in studio shooting. The “Mirror” has an impressive size, and therefore it is easier for its owner to convince potential customers of their own professionalism.

You need to buy a mirrorless camera if:

  1. The budget is limited. Mirrorless devices are cheaper than mirrorless ones with similar parameters, as they have a simpler design.
  2. The photographer is going to shoot parties. “Mirrorless” are different high speed frame changes - therefore, the probability of getting an excellent photo during continuous shooting is higher.
  3. It is important for the photographer that the device is compact. “SLR” have more significant dimensions than “mirrorless”, which is easy to hide in your pocket.

Even the luminaries of photography cannot agree on which camera is better - SLR or mirrorless. If you believe the statistics, in 80% of cases, the owners of "DSLRs" resort to the regime live view- that is, they do not use a mirror at all. The use of a mirror is necessary if, for example, shooting takes place in sunny weather or if you need fast focusing.

In most other cases, you can achieve excellent shots from a “mirrorless” camera.

Even some five years ago, this question could be classified as purely rhetorical. Despite the fact that the number of mirrorless photographic equipment on store shelves was already beginning to grow rapidly, these newfangled products did not constitute any serious competition for classic SLR cameras. And the vast majority of professional photographers and photojournalists continued to use their mirror Nikons and Canons. Advanced amateur photographers adhered to the same choice.

However, development professionals technical systems they unanimously assured that a revolution in the photo market would definitely occur in the coming years. And mirrorless cameras with an electronic viewfinder will bury the "DSLRs", as digital cameras in the early 2000s, they brought their film counterparts to the grave. So what do we have today?


Background

At the very moment when the film in the cameras was replaced by a photosensitive matrix, it became clear that the days of SLR photography were numbered. If we get a digitized image with the help of a matrix, then God himself ordered to transfer it to an electronic viewfinder, as, for example, is done in video cameras, and to examine with the eye the image that we get at the output. This decision offered many benefits.

Firstly, the photographer was able to make exposure or white balance adjustments without taking trial shots, which would increase the camera's resource.
Secondly, we got rid of not the most reliable mechanism for lifting the mirror, which also greatly increased the size of the camera.
And, as a bonus, it became possible to display various useful information for the photographer in the viewfinder field. For example, show an enlarged image at the focus point to simplify manual lens focusing.

The matter remained small - to ensure that the electronic viewfinder gave an image comparable in quality to the picture that the viewfinders of "reflex cameras" give.

Let me remind you, by the way, that mirrorless digital cameras were born before "DSLRs". And my first digital camera was some kind of "soap box" from Olympus with an electronic viewfinder. But the quality of the image he created was so poor that it was not possible to determine in the viewfinder the direction of the portrait's gaze or to distinguish other details important for the photographer.
Not surprisingly, I soon abandoned this camera.

However, it must be admitted that at the moment the quality of electronic viewfinders has stepped forward significantly. So why don't we hear mournful music about "DSLRs" that left the photographic market untimely?

Advantages and disadvantages of mirrorless cameras

To answer this question, first of all, you need to decide what advantages a “mirrorless” camera with interchangeable lenses has over “DSLRs”, and how important these advantages are for a photographer.

1. Smaller dimensions and weight. Since we are getting rid of the mirror lift mechanism, it is possible to make the camera body flatter and slightly lighter. Is it always good? I think no. Here comes into force such a factor as the comfort of photography. The camera should fit comfortably in your hand. And for this, it must have certain dimensions, proportional to the size of the hand.
It is no coincidence that many photographers complain about entry-level DSLRs, which are greatly reduced in size compared to top models. But, on the other hand, there are areas of application of cameras in which weight and dimensions play an important role. For example, photography on trips and travels.

2. Higher shutter reliability. Since in SLRs, in addition to the camera shutter itself, there is also a mechanism for lifting the mirror, which most often fails first, mirrorless cameras should have greater reliability and a longer shutter life. How true this is in real life is hard to say. However, some firms give the figure of 400 thousand in the technical characteristics of their "mirrorless" products. That's how many photos you can take before the first shutter failure. This is a very good indicator, comparable to the resource of professional "DSLRs".

3. Great information content of the viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder has several significant advantages. The photographer observes in it practically the picture that he will receive after pressing the shutter button. That is, he can increase the exposure if the frame seems too dark to him. Or correct the white balance without making test shots. In addition, when shooting in the dark, it can see the subject better, since the image in the electronic viewfinder will be bright. Also in the electronic viewfinder, you can, as on the screen, display a lot of useful information, which was mentioned earlier.

4. Less cost. In theory, the absence of an expensive mechanism for lifting the mirror, lower weight and dimensions should lead to the fact that the "mirrorless" will be cheaper than its "mirror" counterparts. But for now, it's rather the other way around.

Now, in order to be objective in my assessments, I will also talk about the shortcomings of “mirrorless” cameras.

1. Due to the reduced dimensions, they lie worse in the hand.

2. The electronic viewfinder consumes power to operate. And since it works all the time when shooting, the batteries run out quickly. If many SLR cameras On a single charge, they allow you to shoot more than a thousand frames, "mirrorless" barely take 400 shots. It is especially disappointing that even when you are not shooting, but simply looking at something through the viewfinder, battery power is being actively consumed. That is, you do not aim for a long time.

3. Although the quality of the picture in the electronic viewfinder has improved, it is still inferior to the image of the optical channel in the "reflex cameras". 4. “Mirrorless” turn on a little more slowly, and in some of them the image is served with some delay, which, however, is not critical. 5. Many "mirrorless" still lose in autofocus speed, although the appearance in latest models hybrid autofocus, where focusing is both in contrast and in phase sensors, almost corrected the situation.

Comparison with specific examples

Judging by the ratings of Yandex-Market and MOYO Trading Network https://www.moyo.ua/foto_video/photo_video/cameras/, one of the most popular top-tier "mirrorless" cameras is Sony Alpha A7R2, the price of which now fluctuates around 200 thousand rubles for a carcass without a lens. This roughly corresponds to the cost of a SLR camera like the Canon 5D mark3.

Let's compare them and announce, if not the final verdict, then at least the results of the intermediate finish in the ongoing race of these two types of cameras.

Camera type:
Appearance:
Sensor size: 36x24mm 35.9 x 24mm
Frame size: 5760 x 3840 or 22.3 megapixels 7952 x 5304 or 42.4 megapixels
Matrix type: CMOS BSI CMOS
Matrix stabilizer: Missing 5-axis stabilization
Shooting speed: 6 fps 5 fps
Viewfinder: Optic Electronic 2359296 pixels
LCD screen: 1044000 dots, 3.20 inches 1228800 dots, 3 inches
Excerpt: 30 – 1/8000 30 – 1/8000
Battery capacity: 950 frames 340 frames
Video resolution: 1920x1080 3840x2160
Max HD video frame rate: 30 fps 60 fps
Camera Size: 152x116x76mm, no lens 127x96x60 mm, without lens
Camera weight: 950 g, with batteries 625 g, with batteries

As you can see, the dry logic of numbers suggests that the "mirrorless" Sony Alpha A7R2 camera wins in most parameters.
It has a more advanced back-illuminated sensor that reduces noise at high sensitivities.
It allows you to take pictures almost twice bigger size by the number of megapixels.
Shoots video in 4K. And in HD format, it makes it possible to shoot videos at a frequency of 60 frames per second versus 30 frames for Canon.
At the same time, it is lighter and more compact than its mirror competitor.

And one more important point: Sony Alpha A7R2 has an effective image stabilizer on the matrix. While Canon does not have it, since the company still prefers to put optical-type stabilizers directly into lenses, which terribly increases their cost.

Loses Sony Alpha A7R2 so far only in less battery life, slightly in the rate of fire. A little in focus speed and turn-on time. It also lies less comfortably in the hand and is not as quickly controlled.

Already at first glance it is clear that this "mirrorless" has more pluses than minuses compared to the flagship from Canon.

So why do professional photographers and advanced amateurs for the most part still prefer to shoot with DSLRs? The reason, in my opinion, should be sought in two planes.
Firstly, the Sony Alpha A7R2 and most other mirrorless cameras are still inferior in terms of speed and ergonomics, which is often crucial for professionals.
Secondly, a certain inertia of choice works. It takes time for the buyer to believe in new type cameras. Yes, and the problem of switching to new line lenses should not be discounted.

For those photographers who choose a camera “from scratch”, today it makes sense to think about buying a “mirrorless”, especially when it will be used mainly on trips, where every kilogram of weight creates considerable problems.

It turns out that the age of "DSLRs" is still coming to an end. Unless, of course, their manufacturers come up with something out of the ordinary.

Valery MISHAKOV