Mirrorless revolution
On Monday, July 23, Canon was the last of the major photo manufacturers to announce its first mirrorless camera, the EOS-M. On paper, the new camera has quite good characteristics, but it will not be about it, but mirrorless in general, and what allowed them to create technologies in particular.
We are witnessing another revolution in the photo shop. The first mirrorless cameras appeared less than five years ago, but they already managed to significantly move the traditional DSLRs (in Asia, their sales became equal to the sales of DSLRs), and at the same time they helped cameraphones to destroy the market of soap dishes (only 40% drop in sales last year).
At the same time, the grains of adequate technical information on the Internet are buried under a thick layer of marketing manipulations and amateurish fabrications of amateurs. So I wish to enlighten please
The camera should help the photographer determine shooting options. Usually, this is understood first of all as exposure to exposure (shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity), but here we will talk about frame geometry.
')
The photographer must see what exactly gets into the frame at a particular angle of view of the lens and the position of the camera. To solve this problem, various camera designs are still used, including cameras with a second lens or with a separate optical viewfinder ( sometimes interchangeable ), the angle of which coincides with the angle of view of the main lens.
But the SLR-design with a moving or translucent mirror and pentaprism acquired the greatest popularity in the twentieth century, allowing the photographer to observe in the viewfinder a picture that passed through the camera lens. Before shooting the mirror rises, and the image falls directly on the film or matrix.
With the transition of a photo to a figure, it became possible to read the image from the matrix all the time and transmit it to the screen or the electronic viewfinder (the same viewfinder, inside of which there is a small screen). The need for a mirror has disappeared, and since it complicates the design, costs money and takes up space - his fate was sealed. The design was first brought to mind on the "soap cases", and then transferred to more serious cameras with large matrices and interchangeable optics, which they called mirrorless cameras.
Any engineer knows that the best part in any car is the one that does not exist: it does not need to be developed, it costs nothing and, most importantly, it does not break. The only question is how mature is the "childless" technology for solving one or another task. At this point, the post on the Habré could have been finished, but most photographers and marketers are not engineers, and the Internet is replete with myths and horror stories about mirrorless. We will talk about them.
In computer 3D graphics, by default, all objects are displayed on the screen equally sharply regardless of their distance from the observer along the z axis ("depth"). In real cameras, only the points are sharply displayed, the z-coordinate of which is in a certain depth interval (R 1 , R 2 ), which is called “ depth of field ”. The further the point is from this interval, the more blurred it will be in the image. This is in demand in artistic photography, where you need to focus the viewer's attention on the subject, show it in as much detail as possible, and blur the foreground and background. A photographer can change R 1 and R 2 by moving the objective lens with the focus ring and varying the aperture.
Earlier, a distance scale was applied to the lenses (in the figure, the second one was lower), and the focusing ring was marked with distance marks to the object (central mark on the lower scale) and depth boundaries of the sharply depicted space depending on the aperture (paired marks on the sides of the central one):
A photographer using a DSLR can simply look into the viewfinder, rotate the ring and focus in the literal sense “by eye”, without knowing the distance to the object in advance.
In mirrorless cameras, this method of manual focusing is greatly improved by the ability to increase an arbitrary area of ​​the image, using the focus peaking mode and image stabilization during the focusing process.
In order to realize autofocus, electronic sensors are placed on the mirror of SLR cameras. These sensors measure the phases of rays emanating from a single point, but passed through different paths inside the lens. If the phases coincide, the point is in focus; if not, then by the phase difference one can estimate the distance to the object and refocus the lens by that distance. For several successive approximations, you can more or less accurately focus the lens.
Phase autofocus is fast and allows you to keep track of objects that are out of focus. But the number of possible focus points is limited by the number of phase sensors (a few dozen at most), it is not very accurate at all and is subject to systematic errors in particular. Since the sensors are on the mirror and not on the matrix, phase autofocus can be systematically mistaken "forward" (front-focus ") or backward (" back-focus "). This is corrected either by fine adjustment of the specific lens on a specific camera, or (partially ) the introduction of software correction, the parameters of which are set manually.
Mirrorlessly, another principle is traditionally used: the edges of objects are programmatically distinguished and the position of a focal lens block at which these edges are most contrast is sought. Contrast autofocus is very accurate and allows you to focus at any point in the frame. For example, a photographer can indicate a point with a finger on a touch screen, or it can be chosen by a recognition algorithm that highlights the eyes and faces, and from a group of individuals — by the photographer’s relatives. In good shooting conditions, contrast autofocus is fast, but in the worst case, the camera has to completely scan the entire range of distances, which is quite long. In addition, contrast autofocus systematically makes mistakes when tracking moving objects.
In practice, these two principles successfully complement each other.
In most modern DSLRs, phase autofocus is used with the mirror lowered and contrasting with the mirror raised.
In many mirrorless cameras, such as in the Canon EOS-M mentioned at the beginning of the article, phase sensors help directly to the autofocus and are thus free from front-and back-focus problems.
The autofocus of the first mirrorless was really slow, but it was a growth problem.
For serious photographers, the total cost of lenses is several times greater than the cost of the camera. At the same time, each manufacturer or alliance of manufacturers has its own bayonet (lens mount connector for the camera) - purely for marketing reasons. Due to technological revolutions, the bayonet has to be periodically changed, which, of course, is perceived as hostile by people who have invested in the optics of the previous standard. Of course, manufacturers produce adapters with which old lenses can be put on new cameras, but it’s not always possible to maintain full performance.
In the case of switching to mirrorless the next bayonet change is really necessary.
First, due to the ejection of the mirror, the working segment is reduced (the distance inside the chamber between the edge of the bayonet and the matrix). Reducing the working length does not affect tele- and portrait lenses, but it greatly simplifies the design of normal and especially wide-angle lenses.
For example, a Leica D Summilux 25mm 1: 1.4 lens for an FT bayonet (40 mm working segment) weighs 510 grams at a price of $ 1,100. His twin brother Leica DG Summilux 25mm 1: 1.4 for the MFT bayonet (20 mm working segment) weighs only 200 grams and costs $ 550.
Secondly, there are insurmountable differences in the work of autofocus. The old phase autofocus is designed for several large lens movements. Contrast AF involves small steps with the ability to quickly ride through the entire range of distances. It's not just the autofocus engine device; The lens must be designed in such a way as to minimize the weight of the movable lens unit and its range of movement. Because of this, the old mirrored glass mounted on the mirrorless adapter work, but work slowly.
Third, manufacturers took advantage of the moment and shifted the task of correcting some distortion, such as chromatic aberration and distortion (barrel / pad) from the lens, where these corrections are difficult and expensive, to the camera processor, where it is done programmatically. This allows either to reduce the cost of the lens, or, at a given cost, to reduce other distortions from the Seidl aberration group and improve the picture quality.
Another thing is that the manufacturers simply did not have time to completely recount the lines of their lenses under mirrorless. So at the moment, yes, problems with mirrorless optics are taking place.
At the dawn of photography, each producer invented not only his mount, but also his own film format, which he himself planned to produce. The disgrace was stopped by the Leica company (nee Leitz), which took a standard 35 mm film film, already then produced by kilometers, and unrolled a frame on it from the transverse position to the longitudinal one. Photographers amicably "voted brand and dollar" and forced all other manufacturers to accept this standard.
Now the size of 36x24 mm is called “full frame”, “full frame” or simply FF.
When switching to a figure, it turned out that it is very difficult and expensive to manufacture a FF-matrix with an area of ​​almost 1000 mm 2 . Therefore, at first, cameras with smaller matrices were released (1.5 - 2 times). The coefficient of reduction of the diagonal of the matrix was called the cropping factor, and the cameras themselves in everyday life were called “crocs”. When installing full-frame lenses on a sprinkled camera, the matrix perceives only the central part of the imaged image. Gradually, the manufacturers updated the lines of lenses so that they formed an image only within the sprinkled matrix and could not cover the full frame - due to this, the lenses became sharper, more compact and cheaper (choose any two).
Later, Leica, Canon, Nikon and Sony still mastered the production of FF-matrices for installation in the most expensive models of their professional cameras. Only such matrices could fully unleash the potential of professional lenses already issued with six-digit price tags . It was these FF cameras that made the top professionals go digital.
In general, a professional camera differs from an amateur one not only and not so much by a matrix as by tank reliability, a large number of controls and a bunch of special modes and features. But in the minds of the masses, the thesis that only the frame size matters, is therefore firmly established, FF is “cool” by default, and the crop is “for destitute”. This allowed companies to sell PF lenses to fans with crooked cameras who were not very versed in photo equipment, but hoped for the emergence of low-cost FF cameras in the future.
All mirrorless cameras released today have sprinkled matrices, and judging by the technical parameters of mirrorless bayonet, no manufacturer other than Pentax can release FF mirrorless without changing the bayonet again. Why?
Theoretically, if we compare two cameras with matrices on the same technology, but of different sizes, then we can expect lower noise, an increased resolution that is actually obtained and a reduced minimum achievable depth of field. But this is all very far from the practice.
Theoretically, noise reduction is achieved due to the fact that the pixels of the FF-matrices are larger and more photons fall on each individual pixel. In practice, the linear dimensions of pixels in FF-matrices are only 15% -25% more than in the crooked ones, which, with the same sensor manufacturing technology, gives an almost insignificant ISO increase (by 1/3 - 1/2 of the foot).
Theoretically, with a given pixel size on the FF matrix, there will be more pixels, due to which its resolution will be higher. In practice, the real resolution has long been limited by the lens, and not by the matrix; the diffraction limit is still far away; therefore, the real resolution of cameras that were created without regard to marketing considerations does not depend on the size of their matrices (within reasonable limits).
This is a very strong statement, but independent lab tests confirm it. So, according to the results of DPReview, the Olympus E-M5 mirrorless (16 megapixels, cropping 2) shows a resolution of 2800 LW / PH (lines); FF DSLR Canon 5D Mark III (21 Mp, Crop Factor 1) - the same 2800 LW / PH ; mirrorless Sony NEX-7 (crop 1.5, 24 megapixel) - 3400 LW / PH ; FF DSLR Nikon D800 (crop 1, 36 MP) - 3200 LW / PH . Other laboratories come to similar conclusions. In the photo, where everything, including resolution, is measured by logarithmic stops (1 stop = 2 times), such small differences in the results of tests in practice are insignificant. The most important thing is that such a huge resolution was not dreamed of film cameras, but in order to view the photo in detail, either a huge professional monitor or print on A2 and above is necessary.
As for the depth of field, it depends on many factors, including the size of the matrix and the f-number. With a given diaphragm, the depth of field on the FF camera will indeed be less, which allows us to blur the background even more with dark budget lensesand remove the “shydevry” against the background of any garbage . But the opposite is also true: at a given depth of sharpness on the crocs, the diaphragm will be open wider, due to which the shutter speed will be less and the diffraction limit further.
The mirrorless design allows cameras to be somewhat smaller and somewhat cheaper with the same quality of images, or substantially less and cheaper with a certain decrease in quality. At the dawn of their appearance, mirrorless cameras went along the second path, wedged between the top soap-boxes and entry-level DSLRs, eventually displacing both of them. They were bought for constant wear: the smaller the camera, the more chances it has for the photographer to be at hand at the right moment. Over time, more advanced models appeared, which began to compete with the SLR of the average amateur range.
Today, only one semi-class camera has been released - the Olympus E-M5. It has a built-in viewfinder, weather protection, an optional battery grip, and most importantly - (not yet fully complete) a set of lenses of the appropriate level. In September 2012, the release of the second such camera is expected - the Panasonic GH3, which uses the same bayonet as the Olympus. Actually, it was these two companies that created the first mirrorless micro4 / 3 system, closed the production of their DSLRs for it, and also created a full line of amateur-level lenses and, not without the help of Leica , Carl Zeiss and Voightlander , complete the formation of “pro” - rulers.
Fujifilm turned out to be a very interesting, although expensive, system, but so far there are only three lenses in it, among which there is not a single zoom. Covered the production of DSLRs for mirrorless Samsung and, but, despite the good performance characteristics, mirrorless cameras are not yet in great demand.
Other manufacturers are not so radical and are still trying to sit on two chairs - and stake out a place in the booming mirrorless market, and not to kill ahead of time their own line of amateur DSLRs. Canon frankly overslept. Nikon released a mirrorless with a number of interesting decisions, but a crop factor of 2.7 instead of the normal 1.5. Sony nakhimichila with flashes, and Pentax by tradition kept the good old bayonet K , having received a mirrorless mirror of inadequate thickness at the exit.
Anyway, all the mirrorless mirrors that exist today are aimed at amateurs with a different wallet thickness, or as a pro, who needs a camera for constant carrying in their pockets.
In the professional segment, the prospects for mirrorless foggy. Reducing the size of the camera is of interest to the extent that it does not lead to the reduction of numerous controls, and for studio photographers it does not matter at all. Their price is of interest only in terms of compatibility with already acquired lenses. But what can I say, many pros still use rangefinders without a mirror and autofocus . It is possible that today's FF SLRs will eventually occupy the same niche “for connoisseurs”.
In the mainstream, the mirror, which is an analogue of digital camera control, is simply doomed to retire. Its place will be taken by mirrorless GPS, YouTube, Facebookand the inevitable android .
We are witnessing another revolution in the photo shop. The first mirrorless cameras appeared less than five years ago, but they already managed to significantly move the traditional DSLRs (in Asia, their sales became equal to the sales of DSLRs), and at the same time they helped cameraphones to destroy the market of soap dishes (only 40% drop in sales last year).
At the same time, the grains of adequate technical information on the Internet are buried under a thick layer of marketing manipulations and amateurish fabrications of amateurs. So I wish to enlighten please
Camera designs
The camera should help the photographer determine shooting options. Usually, this is understood first of all as exposure to exposure (shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity), but here we will talk about frame geometry.
')
The photographer must see what exactly gets into the frame at a particular angle of view of the lens and the position of the camera. To solve this problem, various camera designs are still used, including cameras with a second lens or with a separate optical viewfinder ( sometimes interchangeable ), the angle of which coincides with the angle of view of the main lens.
But the SLR-design with a moving or translucent mirror and pentaprism acquired the greatest popularity in the twentieth century, allowing the photographer to observe in the viewfinder a picture that passed through the camera lens. Before shooting the mirror rises, and the image falls directly on the film or matrix.
With the transition of a photo to a figure, it became possible to read the image from the matrix all the time and transmit it to the screen or the electronic viewfinder (the same viewfinder, inside of which there is a small screen). The need for a mirror has disappeared, and since it complicates the design, costs money and takes up space - his fate was sealed. The design was first brought to mind on the "soap cases", and then transferred to more serious cameras with large matrices and interchangeable optics, which they called mirrorless cameras.
Any engineer knows that the best part in any car is the one that does not exist: it does not need to be developed, it costs nothing and, most importantly, it does not break. The only question is how mature is the "childless" technology for solving one or another task. At this point, the post on the Habré could have been finished, but most photographers and marketers are not engineers, and the Internet is replete with myths and horror stories about mirrorless. We will talk about them.
Focusing
In computer 3D graphics, by default, all objects are displayed on the screen equally sharply regardless of their distance from the observer along the z axis ("depth"). In real cameras, only the points are sharply displayed, the z-coordinate of which is in a certain depth interval (R 1 , R 2 ), which is called “ depth of field ”. The further the point is from this interval, the more blurred it will be in the image. This is in demand in artistic photography, where you need to focus the viewer's attention on the subject, show it in as much detail as possible, and blur the foreground and background. A photographer can change R 1 and R 2 by moving the objective lens with the focus ring and varying the aperture.
Earlier, a distance scale was applied to the lenses (in the figure, the second one was lower), and the focusing ring was marked with distance marks to the object (central mark on the lower scale) and depth boundaries of the sharply depicted space depending on the aperture (paired marks on the sides of the central one):
A photographer using a DSLR can simply look into the viewfinder, rotate the ring and focus in the literal sense “by eye”, without knowing the distance to the object in advance.
In mirrorless cameras, this method of manual focusing is greatly improved by the ability to increase an arbitrary area of ​​the image, using the focus peaking mode and image stabilization during the focusing process.
In order to realize autofocus, electronic sensors are placed on the mirror of SLR cameras. These sensors measure the phases of rays emanating from a single point, but passed through different paths inside the lens. If the phases coincide, the point is in focus; if not, then by the phase difference one can estimate the distance to the object and refocus the lens by that distance. For several successive approximations, you can more or less accurately focus the lens.
Phase autofocus is fast and allows you to keep track of objects that are out of focus. But the number of possible focus points is limited by the number of phase sensors (a few dozen at most), it is not very accurate at all and is subject to systematic errors in particular. Since the sensors are on the mirror and not on the matrix, phase autofocus can be systematically mistaken "forward" (front-focus ") or backward (" back-focus "). This is corrected either by fine adjustment of the specific lens on a specific camera, or (partially ) the introduction of software correction, the parameters of which are set manually.
Mirrorlessly, another principle is traditionally used: the edges of objects are programmatically distinguished and the position of a focal lens block at which these edges are most contrast is sought. Contrast autofocus is very accurate and allows you to focus at any point in the frame. For example, a photographer can indicate a point with a finger on a touch screen, or it can be chosen by a recognition algorithm that highlights the eyes and faces, and from a group of individuals — by the photographer’s relatives. In good shooting conditions, contrast autofocus is fast, but in the worst case, the camera has to completely scan the entire range of distances, which is quite long. In addition, contrast autofocus systematically makes mistakes when tracking moving objects.
In practice, these two principles successfully complement each other.
In most modern DSLRs, phase autofocus is used with the mirror lowered and contrasting with the mirror raised.
In many mirrorless cameras, such as in the Canon EOS-M mentioned at the beginning of the article, phase sensors help directly to the autofocus and are thus free from front-and back-focus problems.
The autofocus of the first mirrorless was really slow, but it was a growth problem.
Lenses and bayonet
For serious photographers, the total cost of lenses is several times greater than the cost of the camera. At the same time, each manufacturer or alliance of manufacturers has its own bayonet (lens mount connector for the camera) - purely for marketing reasons. Due to technological revolutions, the bayonet has to be periodically changed, which, of course, is perceived as hostile by people who have invested in the optics of the previous standard. Of course, manufacturers produce adapters with which old lenses can be put on new cameras, but it’s not always possible to maintain full performance.
In the case of switching to mirrorless the next bayonet change is really necessary.
First, due to the ejection of the mirror, the working segment is reduced (the distance inside the chamber between the edge of the bayonet and the matrix). Reducing the working length does not affect tele- and portrait lenses, but it greatly simplifies the design of normal and especially wide-angle lenses.
For example, a Leica D Summilux 25mm 1: 1.4 lens for an FT bayonet (40 mm working segment) weighs 510 grams at a price of $ 1,100. His twin brother Leica DG Summilux 25mm 1: 1.4 for the MFT bayonet (20 mm working segment) weighs only 200 grams and costs $ 550.
Secondly, there are insurmountable differences in the work of autofocus. The old phase autofocus is designed for several large lens movements. Contrast AF involves small steps with the ability to quickly ride through the entire range of distances. It's not just the autofocus engine device; The lens must be designed in such a way as to minimize the weight of the movable lens unit and its range of movement. Because of this, the old mirrored glass mounted on the mirrorless adapter work, but work slowly.
Third, manufacturers took advantage of the moment and shifted the task of correcting some distortion, such as chromatic aberration and distortion (barrel / pad) from the lens, where these corrections are difficult and expensive, to the camera processor, where it is done programmatically. This allows either to reduce the cost of the lens, or, at a given cost, to reduce other distortions from the Seidl aberration group and improve the picture quality.
Another thing is that the manufacturers simply did not have time to completely recount the lines of their lenses under mirrorless. So at the moment, yes, problems with mirrorless optics are taking place.
Frame size
At the dawn of photography, each producer invented not only his mount, but also his own film format, which he himself planned to produce. The disgrace was stopped by the Leica company (nee Leitz), which took a standard 35 mm film film, already then produced by kilometers, and unrolled a frame on it from the transverse position to the longitudinal one. Photographers amicably "voted brand and dollar" and forced all other manufacturers to accept this standard.
Now the size of 36x24 mm is called “full frame”, “full frame” or simply FF.
When switching to a figure, it turned out that it is very difficult and expensive to manufacture a FF-matrix with an area of ​​almost 1000 mm 2 . Therefore, at first, cameras with smaller matrices were released (1.5 - 2 times). The coefficient of reduction of the diagonal of the matrix was called the cropping factor, and the cameras themselves in everyday life were called “crocs”. When installing full-frame lenses on a sprinkled camera, the matrix perceives only the central part of the imaged image. Gradually, the manufacturers updated the lines of lenses so that they formed an image only within the sprinkled matrix and could not cover the full frame - due to this, the lenses became sharper, more compact and cheaper (choose any two).
Later, Leica, Canon, Nikon and Sony still mastered the production of FF-matrices for installation in the most expensive models of their professional cameras. Only such matrices could fully unleash the potential of professional lenses already issued with six-digit price tags . It was these FF cameras that made the top professionals go digital.
In general, a professional camera differs from an amateur one not only and not so much by a matrix as by tank reliability, a large number of controls and a bunch of special modes and features. But in the minds of the masses, the thesis that only the frame size matters, is therefore firmly established, FF is “cool” by default, and the crop is “for destitute”. This allowed companies to sell PF lenses to fans with crooked cameras who were not very versed in photo equipment, but hoped for the emergence of low-cost FF cameras in the future.
All mirrorless cameras released today have sprinkled matrices, and judging by the technical parameters of mirrorless bayonet, no manufacturer other than Pentax can release FF mirrorless without changing the bayonet again. Why?
Theoretically, if we compare two cameras with matrices on the same technology, but of different sizes, then we can expect lower noise, an increased resolution that is actually obtained and a reduced minimum achievable depth of field. But this is all very far from the practice.
Theoretically, noise reduction is achieved due to the fact that the pixels of the FF-matrices are larger and more photons fall on each individual pixel. In practice, the linear dimensions of pixels in FF-matrices are only 15% -25% more than in the crooked ones, which, with the same sensor manufacturing technology, gives an almost insignificant ISO increase (by 1/3 - 1/2 of the foot).
Theoretically, with a given pixel size on the FF matrix, there will be more pixels, due to which its resolution will be higher. In practice, the real resolution has long been limited by the lens, and not by the matrix; the diffraction limit is still far away; therefore, the real resolution of cameras that were created without regard to marketing considerations does not depend on the size of their matrices (within reasonable limits).
This is a very strong statement, but independent lab tests confirm it. So, according to the results of DPReview, the Olympus E-M5 mirrorless (16 megapixels, cropping 2) shows a resolution of 2800 LW / PH (lines); FF DSLR Canon 5D Mark III (21 Mp, Crop Factor 1) - the same 2800 LW / PH ; mirrorless Sony NEX-7 (crop 1.5, 24 megapixel) - 3400 LW / PH ; FF DSLR Nikon D800 (crop 1, 36 MP) - 3200 LW / PH . Other laboratories come to similar conclusions. In the photo, where everything, including resolution, is measured by logarithmic stops (1 stop = 2 times), such small differences in the results of tests in practice are insignificant. The most important thing is that such a huge resolution was not dreamed of film cameras, but in order to view the photo in detail, either a huge professional monitor or print on A2 and above is necessary.
As for the depth of field, it depends on many factors, including the size of the matrix and the f-number. With a given diaphragm, the depth of field on the FF camera will indeed be less, which allows us to blur the background even more with dark budget lenses
Conclusion
The mirrorless design allows cameras to be somewhat smaller and somewhat cheaper with the same quality of images, or substantially less and cheaper with a certain decrease in quality. At the dawn of their appearance, mirrorless cameras went along the second path, wedged between the top soap-boxes and entry-level DSLRs, eventually displacing both of them. They were bought for constant wear: the smaller the camera, the more chances it has for the photographer to be at hand at the right moment. Over time, more advanced models appeared, which began to compete with the SLR of the average amateur range.
Today, only one semi-class camera has been released - the Olympus E-M5. It has a built-in viewfinder, weather protection, an optional battery grip, and most importantly - (not yet fully complete) a set of lenses of the appropriate level. In September 2012, the release of the second such camera is expected - the Panasonic GH3, which uses the same bayonet as the Olympus. Actually, it was these two companies that created the first mirrorless micro4 / 3 system, closed the production of their DSLRs for it, and also created a full line of amateur-level lenses and, not without the help of Leica , Carl Zeiss and Voightlander , complete the formation of “pro” - rulers.
Fujifilm turned out to be a very interesting, although expensive, system, but so far there are only three lenses in it, among which there is not a single zoom. Covered the production of DSLRs for mirrorless Samsung and, but, despite the good performance characteristics, mirrorless cameras are not yet in great demand.
Other manufacturers are not so radical and are still trying to sit on two chairs - and stake out a place in the booming mirrorless market, and not to kill ahead of time their own line of amateur DSLRs. Canon frankly overslept. Nikon released a mirrorless with a number of interesting decisions, but a crop factor of 2.7 instead of the normal 1.5. Sony nakhimichila with flashes, and Pentax by tradition kept the good old bayonet K , having received a mirrorless mirror of inadequate thickness at the exit.
Anyway, all the mirrorless mirrors that exist today are aimed at amateurs with a different wallet thickness, or as a pro, who needs a camera for constant carrying in their pockets.
In the professional segment, the prospects for mirrorless foggy. Reducing the size of the camera is of interest to the extent that it does not lead to the reduction of numerous controls, and for studio photographers it does not matter at all. Their price is of interest only in terms of compatibility with already acquired lenses. But what can I say, many pros still use rangefinders without a mirror and autofocus . It is possible that today's FF SLRs will eventually occupy the same niche “for connoisseurs”.
In the mainstream, the mirror, which is an analogue of digital camera control, is simply doomed to retire. Its place will be taken by mirrorless GPS, YouTube, Facebook
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/148420/
All Articles