Mirrorless cameras and the law of computer power

The boom of compact system cameras that broke out three years ago took by surprise both hordes of cross-mirrors, who continued to praise the advantages of their favorite systems in every way, as well as fans of top compact cameras who are ready to invest huge money in the functionality of cameras, which is hardly comparable to the junior level cameras. It is no secret that mirrorless cameras have caused not only a natural interest, but also a barrage of hatred; Before the abbreviation CSC (Compact System Cameras) for the “mirrorless” in the English-speaking world, the majority called them only EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens). There was a serious talk about the conspiracy of corporations, the absorption of market segments and even world war declared to the owners of huge full-length boxes by crowds of rogue people who want to show off their professionalism but who are not ready to pay for the pleasure of photographing the need to carry huge wallets with equipment.

Deadlines passed, what was intended was done, and mirrorless cameras occupied that logical niche, which they were supposed to take initially - the place of film rangefinders. Retrodesign and system management, orientation to manual optics, typical for most modern mirrorless cameras (BZK), weight and dimensions, usage pattern - all this indicates the return to the world of an entire segment of cameras, designed equally for certain professional tasks and for very advanced, high-quality amateur photography. Low-end compacts are gradually dying off, giving way to smartphones, and top-end compact cameras for enthusiasts are approaching the BZK in terms of characteristics and capabilities, primarily in terms of the physical size of the sensor. The time has come to evaluate, without unnecessary emotions, what processes suddenly pushed mirrorless cameras onto the market, where before there was only a dismal war of “crop against full frame” and no less than a gratuitous battle “Canon vs. Nikon. Whence and why mirrorless surfaced?

The answer is simple: they were generated by computer technologies, the same Moore's law, fully applicable to all areas of computer life, including digital photography. As soon as it became possible to create a hardware base for reliable work with interchangeable lenses, without resorting to phase sensors located in the mirror viewfinder area, the mirrorless cameras stepped cautiously onto the market, and then weighed down and hit the sensitive SLRs with a sensitive blow. SLRs, however, also did not remain in debt: the miniature Canon 100D and Nikon D3300 are only slightly more massive than their mirrorless counterparts from Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic ... But the mirror in these cameras is nothing more than a tribute to tradition, a rudiment, primarily from - for the dark and small viewfinder; Most of the work in these new SLR cameras is taken up by the screen, processor, focus sensors on the matrix. Such a “mirror image” is nothing more than a marketing deception, designed to “push” the user onto a certain system of optics and accessories. And the decisive arguments are, as in mirrorless cameras, computer capabilities that serve both the acquisition of a digital image and its post-processing.
From this point of view, the trends of modern camera building should be considered now.

Mirrorless camera

I agree in advance that, speaking of mirrorless cameras in the context of this article, I mean also the initial models of DSLRs and top compacts "for enthusiasts." This is a kind of "middle class" in the publicly available photo equipment; Many pros in the West shoot at mirrorless or cropped cameras and do not buzz. I read about a photojournalist who dealt in hot spots with two Olympus Camedia 8080 compacts, and I have to admit that this solution has its advantages. The one who happened to be in Pattaya on the days of the Songkran festival, or in the Pamirs in late spring, when the melt water mixed with snow carries here and there stones in three poods on the slopes, probably thought about changing his pathetic carcass with a great and terrible telezum 16- 400 / 1.2 for something easier. For those who are the first time faced with the classification of cameras (and these are found in this hub?), I will give my explanations.
')
So, traditionally it is believed that cameras are now:

• Point-and-shoot compacts - flat “soap dishes” with a tiny sensor and a dark lens. Quality, as in a smartphone, and even dirtier, plus almost zero functionality.

• Ultrazuma (bridge cameras) - externally similar to the SLR “soap dish” with a huge range of focal lengths, from the widest angle to the astronomically terrible approximation, on the lens with the preparatory optical quality. A small sensor and the lack of useful settings complement the picture. However, in this segment there are pleasant, although very expensive exceptions.

• Top compacts (enthusiast-level cameras) - cameras with manual settings, a non-replaceable good lens and a relatively large sensor (there are even “full-frame” cameras with a sensor format like a film frame). This is already a serious tool for everyday shooting.

• Mirrorless cameras (system cameras) - in fact, the same cameras for enthusiasts, but with the ability to put interchangeable lenses and, almost always, flash or on-camera light. Occupy, as I wrote above, the place of the rangefinder film era in the trunks and pockets of amateur photographers and professional photographers. This is the fastest growing class of cameras.

• Entry-level SLR cameras (entry-level DSLRs) are the same as mirrorless cameras, but with a mirror. (Yes, yes, I remember that a samurai without a sword is all like a samurai with a sword, only without a sword. This is exactly the same case. Especially since all modern digital cameras are made according to Japanese drawings!) You can usually put lenses from the past on them , film camera models of the same company, which was a good reason for their relative popularity. They cannot be considered real SLR cameras for the reason that the main advantage of the SLR, the viewfinder itself, is completely killed by the small and dark image viewing window (pentamirror) with a small increase in the eyecup, which turns the image in the viewfinder into a tunnel.

• Professional SLR cameras (top-level DSLRs) - usually have a large sensor (full frame, FF, equivalent to a 24 × 36 mm film frame) and a bunch of additional features useful to the professional. With the presence of lenses and attachments, they can remove everything from the decay of an antineutron to the explosion of metagalaxy, from a muscular fox to a dying mother-in-law, and from a wedding to an uprising inclusive. That's why they love them, especially those who do not need 95% of the functions available in these cameras.

• "Lake". Produced by the company "Panasonic", inheriting all the typical advantages and disadvantages of this company. This is a classic rangefinder camera (there is also a SLR, costing just over a million rubles). It is allocated in a separate class, because otherwise the owners who have saved up on it are very offended. I will not discuss it, because I did not own it and did not use it, and the pictures from “Leek” seen on the network do not amaze me at all with their technical quality.

Such or roughly is in general terms the map of the modern world of photographic equipment, forcing those involved to tremble in sacred ecstasy. Those involved are ready to rush into battle to defend their favorite brand or class of photographic equipment at the first sign of criticism addressed to him.

I approach classification a little easier.

Any modern camera is a computer.

Therefore, it is necessary to consider the properties of a digital camera from the same point of view from which we consider desktops, laptops, smartphones and other gadgets of the digital era - in terms of computing power, algorithms and quality of hardware, not least the new technologies.

Mirrorless like a computer

The digital image appears in the camera, is transmitted to the archive or is printed as a stream of computer data. Who better, faster, more efficiently processed this stream by providing the most compact, convenient, diverse interface for this is the winner in the race of digital images. In this class, mirrorless is now more modern, faster, more mobile DSLRs. And the comparison of mirrorless cameras with traditional DSLRs is, in fact, a comparison of laptops with traditional desktop computers. Desktops have always been, are and will be more powerful, but laptops are more practical, more convenient, more mobile. From that, in the late 2000s, the world experienced a boom of laptops: their computing power and resources were finally enough for most user tasks. And with mirrorless cameras, exactly the same thing happened. As soon as Moore's law allowed to make mirrorless with characteristics that are not inferior to SLR cameras - they were made, and they won their place under the sun.


Table 1. Comparison of different types of cameras in terms of consumer properties

Those who invest the best algorithms in their cameras, supported by good hardware, win. Examples of this are the experience of Fujifilm, the only camera manufacturer currently capable of producing not sickening and not spoiled by “artistic effects” results when working in JPEG, as well as Sony, whose popularity in the photo world rests on three whales - Minolta optics, Carl optics Zeiss and a normal set of high-quality algorithms for in-camera image processing.

Therefore, it seems to me more legitimate division of cameras not according to formal photographic parameters, but according to conditionally taken generations, reflecting the influence of computer and electronic technologies on the life of an ordinary user. There is some analogy with the development of life on Earth; The evolutionary path of digital cameras looks like this:

• Proterozoic (1990s). The skills of working with the film are lost, and the cost of digital cameras is not for the average user. Sometimes there is a digital footprint in the prints of this era, but most of the time people take photographs on plastic point-and-shoot soap cases with plastic lenses and print color images that are terrible in quality (but with a mandatory date and time stamp) in the laboratory around the corner.

• The problem of (2000-2005). To acquire a decent digital camera in this era is already possible for the advanced and even the ordinary amateur, but the quality of images and processing capabilities are a problem. As the predecessors of future mirrorless cameras, during this period several series of experimental compact cameras with excellent characteristics appear. Later, they are dying out, unable to withstand the competition with the monsters of the next era - the frost.

• Chill (2003-2010). With the release of the Canon 300D and Nikon D50 in the world of amateur photographers, the cropozerkalom boom begins. The quality of the pictures and their ergonomics are vile enough, hence the name of the whole era. As the kings of digital nature, during this period giant full-length cameras dominate the price of many thousands of green presidents; The crown of the dinosaur is the release of the great "puppy", which became the object of worship.

• Kaifosoi (2010 - today). Silently stealing up, Panasonic covertly did a great job, releasing its G1 - the first sane mirror with modern features. In this case, the contribution of Olympus, which had provided the E-series DSLRs with normal LiveView and good compact optics, was also huge. Subsequently, Olympus supports Panasonic, releasing the revolutionary design of the Olympus Pen E-P1. From this point on, mirrorless cameras breed like mushrooms, the younger SLR cameras inherit them in functionality, and shooting for the amateur photographer becomes a real high. The quality of the pictures is also improved so much that it can compete with the mirror dinosaurs of the previous era. We live now in this happy time - the time of the celebration of carefree users and mirrorless cameras!

From this point of view, ultra-fancy Canon 5D Mk III or reporter Nikon D4s, despite their excellent characteristics, belong to dinosaurs; as soon as Moore's law allows them to create an adequate replacement that fits in the pocket, this will be done immediately. Conversely, every step of Fujifilm towards a further increase in the size and price of its cameras will immediately knock the ground out from under these excellent in every respect cameras, transferring them to a segment where they will have to compete for a completely different ecological niche!

Oh yeah, there are still optics, and in general - everything that is usually called “physical characteristics” and pronounced majestically: “Where do you get from the laws of physics? Physics can not be fooled! ". It does not need to deceive. It must be used. Computer tools for obtaining digital images are able to use physics very well!

Optics, sensor and post processing effects

From optics do not go anywhere; Without a good lens, no, even the best algorithm for receiving and processing a snapshot, will not create the correct picture, which you expect intuitively from the photo. A huge park of time-tested lenses is a significant advantage of large DSLRs. Mirrorless cameras, on the other hand, also give their elder counterparts a head start: a short working segment and the absence of the need for a constantly open diaphragm make it possible to use on them all possible types of old and new lenses from any cameras, mirror, distance measuring and cardanals, binoculars, telescopes and optical sights. You can put anything on a typical modern mirrorless camera, from a “petzval” in brass frame, on which great-great-grandmother's daguerreotypes were made, to the supermodern Canon 85 / 1.2 of the second version.

But it is best to put on the mirrorless lenses specifically designed for this mirrorless. Why? Because the lens is also a computer! Any modern lens is equipped with a processor, the algorithms of which are optimized to work in conjunction with the camera. What this gives, will tell you any owner of the Micro 4/3 system, who put an excellent Panasonic lens on the Olympus camera (theoretically, fully compatible with Olympus within the Micro 4/3 standard). The image “goes” because the processing algorithms are different.
Moreover, the sensor is also, above all, a computer. The physical size of the sensor, for which amateur photographers chase the forums that have been reading, is important, there is no dispute. But equally important are the post-processing algorithms used by the camera after taking the image from the sensor. A simple example: a completely identical 16-megapixel sensor, which stands on a number of Nikon, Pentax, Sony models, only on Nikon, had constant problems with the "carrot" - the unnatural yellow-orange color of Caucasian skin. The example is more complicated - no third-party RAW-file converter, except, perhaps, RPP, produced a long time normal picture when processing images from the Fujifilm X-Trans sensor. Even the built-in JPEG camera compression algorithms resulted in better quality and detail than the powerful post-processing tools used by the “non-native” software.

Undoubtedly, algorithmic tools built into the camera are often criticized with taste. Criticized for poor JPEG, for aggressive noise, for compressing and processing RAW images just taken from the sensor. This criticism is in many respects fair, but one should not forget that the camera makers strive to get the most perfect tool for making photographs - and not a machine for technical tests and not a conveyor of raw materials for the work of folk craftsmen! Algorithms, both embedded and post-processing levels, will continue to evolve. The newest theme is backing up images taken from the camera directly to network services. And from this function, just think, they turn up their noses: like so, back-up camera JPEG, not yet licked by photoshop and numerous plugins! Not to mention the bad word about Photoshop, I note only that the images processed by him require the preservation of the original copy; this is where a previously made backup comes in handy!

Conclusion

Modern mirrorless cameras, along with the top-end enthusiast compacts and entry-level DSLRs, are becoming the testing ground where the technologies of the future associated with digital imaging are debugged and improved most quickly. Therefore, it is not necessary to turn up the nose of "non-professional" models; instead, one should be interested not only in the physical and optical characteristics of the new cameras, but also in the nomenclature of the computational tools they use, the generation of processors provided by auto modes, creative settings, and additional functions. In particular, such parameters, the speed of serial shooting, the quality and format of the video, the maximum operating ISO values, etc., even if you do not need them, it always makes sense to evaluate. They contain the characteristics of the camera's processor power, the ability of its hardware and software to receive and post-process images in the most difficult conditions. The future, as you know, is at the computers. Let computers disguised as digital cameras show their best! Then the optimization of consumer characteristics, which took so much time in the minds of photographers, will become truly accessible to amateurs and professionals in all segments.