Reasons to go Mirror-less?

[Jake]

I do not recall seeing reference to this aspect, any links about it please???

TIA

I was only told this, not actually seen a link. But what I was told via a friend. Is that in theory you do not need to calibrate. Without knowing technical details, it had something to do with the image being reflected off the mirror then lifting up and hitting the sensor, that slight distance difference could cause the need for calibration.

With mirrorless, it hits the sensor directly. So no need to calibrate.

Could be totally wrong here btw

 

[woof woof]

Size is only a factor for me in that I downsized from FF to APS-C, so could benefit from smaller lenses - and the fact that, for Fuji at least, these are better than the equivalent Canon APS-C lenses, and a lot smaller than the Canon FF L stuff which was really weighing me down. Appreciate I'm comparing apples and oranges here!

Another good point I think it's true that both Canon and Nikon haven't developed their APS-C lens line up enough with people having to fill the gaps with lenses designed for FF and sometimes these lenses are older designs now.

 

[woof woof]

I was only told this, not actually seen a link. But what I was told via a friend. Is that in theory you do not need to calibrate. Without knowing technical details, it had something to do with the image being reflected off the mirror then lifting up and hitting the sensor, that slight distance difference could cause the need for calibration.

With mirrorless, it hits the sensor directly. So no need to calibrate.

Could be totally wrong here btw

With DSLR's some of the light is diverted to the focusing sensor which is in another place... this gives the potential for errors unless the sensor which captures the image is precisely aligned with the sensor that decides if the image is in focus or not. Hence the need to calibrate...

With mirrorless or with a DSLR in live view the focus is taken off the sensor which captures the image and there should therefore be no alignment issues

 

[Jake]

With DSLR's some of the light is diverted to the focusing sensor which is in another place... this gives the potential for errors unless the sensor which captures the image is precisely aligned with the sensor that decides if the image is in focus or not. Hence the need to calibrate...

With mirrorless or with a DSLR in live view the focus is taken off the sensor which captures the image and there should therefore be no alignment issues

There you go. I was kiinda on the right lines

 

[Mr Badger]

Head towards the light (in more ways than one!) Fraser; Canon 6D Mk1, 24-105 L IS Mk1 and a 70-300 IS Mk 1 (non-L). A good balance between FF image quality and low-light performance, weight, and good focal range coverage with just 2 lenses. Plus you could ditch that Nikon stuff and gain the respect of your peers by using Canon! Joking aside, if you want to try the above for weight and ergonomics then let me know and we can meet up for a pint.

 

[Box Brownie]

I was only told this, not actually seen a link. But what I was told via a friend. Is that in theory you do not need to calibrate. Without knowing technical details, it had something to do with the image being reflected off the mirror then lifting up and hitting the sensor, that slight distance difference could cause the need for calibration.

With mirrorless, it hits the sensor directly. So no need to calibrate.

Could be totally wrong here btw

With DSLR's some of the light is diverted to the focusing sensor which is in another place... this gives the potential for errors unless the sensor which captures the image is precisely aligned with the sensor that decides if the image is in focus or not. Hence the need to calibrate...

With mirrorless or with a DSLR in live view the focus is taken off the sensor which captures the image and there should therefore be no alignment issues

There you go. I was kiinda on the right lines

Ah! I see the logic......

 

[Phil V]

and you'd compromise the flash system compatibility and versatility if that is important...

Just for clarity, the ‘best’ flash system on the market currently is brand agnostic.
The idea that Nikon or Canon provide their users with the best flash is as daft now as it was in the 80’s and 90’s.

Nevertheless, some people who have no use for lots of lighting, and plenty of money just believe the hype from their camera manufacturer.

 

[GreenNinja67]

Indeed.

In film days I was always a Metz man.

 

[Phil V]

What would be/were the main reasons you would/did choose a mirror-less camera over a DSLR?

If you’re desperate for FF there’s not going to be a massive weight difference.

But if you’re happy with a crop or m4/3 setup the savings are substantial, even when compared with crop dslrs.

My M5 and 22mm is tiny compared to the 6d 35mm combo (and the 6d was chosen for its smaller size).

But as others have said, there are some great advantages to shooting mirrorless, it’s a very 21st century experience, and generally I love it (it’s not perfect).

 

[GreenNinja67]

I'm not a pro so I can "get away" with mirrorless.

Although If I was a pro, or undertook a paid assignment I believe I could fulfill the brief with M43.

I've sold a few images taken with the XT-1 and the Olympus is a far better camera, for me anyway.

I've yet to find a situation where I've thought, "Wish I still had my Canikon full frame kit for this".

 

[Harlequin565]

I moved initially for weight, then bought a heavy camera & lenses again (X-T2 & 16-55 f2.8).

For me it's the EVF. Being able to see exactly what the image will look like and being able to make adjustments that you can see the effect of is just amazing (flash excepted).

Also, with the Fujis I love the look & feel (all the controls are in front of you). As it's a hobby, aesthetics can also affect my decision.

 

[ukaskew]

1. No microadjustment required
2. Full AF through the tilty LCD screen
3. WYSIWYG viewfinder
4. Very usable focus peaking
5. Fully electronic cleverness (Live Composite, Live Time etc)
6. Electronic/Silent Shutter
7. Eye AF
8. EVF image review
9. Massive viewfinders

 

[Box Brownie]

Extending Phil @Phil V post about 'when it comes to flash......' the choice includes high performing makes & models that are camera brand agnostic.

To me it matters little what camera was used to take the picture and hence used to create the final picture.......though from a technical standpoint I am interested.

What counts is have I achieved a file that I can (if I want) get it printed up to (at least a max of?) 20x16, uprezzing a tad if required. In other words, be it web sized image or print, it is the result that counts.......... quality of result is brand agnostic (caveat ~ as I perceive it, yes if I want to print very large [landscapes?] a Phase One or similar big, high MP sensor will yield the most impressive results.......so sensor size is relevant but only in regard to the expected/planned/anticipated end result)

 

[mikew]

Nikon and Sony with a 35mm lens, EM1MK11 with a 17mm

 

[footman]

Nikon and Sony with a 35mm lens, EM1MK11 with a 17mm

View attachment 132711

If you took that 35mm lens off the Sony and attached the Sony Sonnar 35mm 2.8 it wouldn’t look very much different from the Olympus.

 

[gad-westy]

Nikon and Sony with a 35mm lens, EM1MK11 with a 17mm

View attachment 132711

Assume those are both 1.4 versions on the Sony and Nikon? I just had a quick look at the Sony with the 35mm 2.8 mounted. Looks amazingly close to the Olympus in size. That's really what I was getting at with a post earlier in the thread. It's possible to almost pocket a full frame, very capable camera with a very small prime attached. That's something that full frame DSLR's can never do. Even the Nikon with the 1.8 35mm is miles bigger than the other two options.

 

[woof woof]

If you took that 35mm lens off the Sony and attached the Sony Sonnar 35mm 2.8 it wouldn’t look very much different from the Olympus.

Yup when my 35mm f2.8 is on my A7 it fits in the same small bag that my MFT RF style cameras and Oly 17mm f1.8 fit into.

Another point is that the Oly 17mm f1.8 is a nice lens, it's well made and the manual focus system is simply wonderful and I wish all MFT lenses were like it but IMO image quality wise it's not exactly vying for top spot SOTA status or anything like it whereas the Sony 35mm f1.4 is a modern top end lens and has the associated bulk that modern top end f1.4 lenses tend to have. A SOTA top end MFT 17mm f1.4 would I assume be a bit bigger than the nice but not excellent Oly 17mm f1.8 and we can see how big the designed to be very good Oly f1.2 lenses are.

 

[ukaskew]

Nikon and Sony with a 35mm lens, EM1MK11 with a 17mm

Attach the Olympus 17mm 1.2 (which in almost all respects is a 'truer' comparison to the Sony/Nikon ones you've picked) and things get somewhat closer, or drop the Sony and Nikon 1.4s for their slower equivalents.

It's very easy to play the camerasize.com game to make an argument, particularly when equivalency raises its ugly head.

 

[chris malcolm]

I decided to convert from 35mm film SLR to DSLR in 2006. I didn't know which system to buy into so I bought a second hand bridge camera to learn the digital ropes while I studied the market.

By 2008 I'd decided that the future was obviously going to be mirrorless, and I was looking forwards to its unique special advantages. A lot of technological research and development however would be required before the performance of the well honed electromechanical technology which the DSLR had inherited from the SLR could be surpassed in all respects. I decided to bet on Sony as being the camera company most likely to make the first good transition into high quality mirrorless technology.

With respect to size and weight I decided that I probably wasn't ever going to upgrade to full frame. The APS-C crop sensor DSLRs offered me all the image quality I'd probably ever want, plus mount compatibility with a lot of good cheap film SLR lenses.

Sony kept nibbling away at the old SLR electromechanical technology and replacing it with modern electronic technology. By 2010 they'd introduced the SLT stationary pellicle mirror technology, a hybrid between mirrorless and DSLR which allowed some of the features of mirrorless technology, such as EVF, to be introduced, while retaining the speed advantages of the old DSLR phase-based AF.

At the same time they introduced the new entirely mirrorless range of E-mount cameras, hoping that its special advantages would be enough to outweigh its AF disadvantages. They may have been surprised at the success of the E-mount, and its full frame version, the later FE-mount. They now appear to have developed E-mount AF to the verge of having good enough performance to replace the old SLT AF technology without any loss of performance. In other words they're now at, or quite close to, having the technology to drop the mirror from the A-mount SLT range.

In 2012 I upgraded from a Sony DSLR to their SLT A77, their top-of-range APS-C crop sensor camera. In other words in 2012 I went half mirrorless. By now I have quite a good stable of Sony A-mount lenses. The upgraded A77ii doesn't attract me, as the next upgrade to any model usually doesn't -- not enough improvement for the money. I like to wait at least two model upgrades before buying a new camera. I'm waiting to see how they're going to manage this important technology transition point.

They could simply drop the SLT mirror and introduce a new range of A-mount completely mirrorless bodies. They could take the opportunity to introduce a modernised backwards compatible upgrade to the A-mount with electronic iris control etc. along with the advantages of no mirror. Or they could introduce a new mirrorless A-to-E mount adapter with no performance loss at all. They could even do these things one at a time in that sequence over a few years. Plus whatever they do will be seen for the first time in the context of possible serious competition from Nikon and Canon moving into the high end mirrorless market. Important strategic decisions.

So having gone half mirrorless in 2012 I'm now in 2018 waiting to see which route Sony will provide for me to make the transition into full mirrorless. I'm quite happy to wait. For my own photographic purposes my aging and superseded A77 SLT camera is still an astonishingly good camera and a delight to use.

 

[juggler]

What would be/were the main reasons you would/did choose a mirror-less camera over a DSLR?

I went from mirrorless to DSLR. I miss the EVF but that's about it.

I still use the EM5 when hiking but that's because it's lighter with a zoom fitted than the D750, not because it's mirrorless.

 

[snerkler]

I've not read through all the posts but for me it would be the ability to have a smaller lighter setup (with the right lenses), decent liveview (for us Nikon shooters) and for me now that the A7Riii has shown me how good an EVF can be the benefits of EVF are now starting to outweigh the pleasure of looking through optics. Whether that's enough to justify swapping (if you have a DSLR) is debatable.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I decided to convert from 35mm film SLR to DSLR in 2006. I didn't know which system to buy into so I bought a second hand bridge camera to learn the digital ropes while I studied the market.

By 2008 I'd decided that the future was obviously going to be mirrorless, and I was looking forwards to its unique special advantages. A lot of technological research and development however would be required before the performance of the well honed electromechanical technology which the DSLR had inherited from the SLR could be surpassed in all respects. I decided to bet on Sony as being the camera company most likely to make the first good transition into high quality mirrorless technology.

With respect to size and weight I decided that I probably wasn't ever going to upgrade to full frame. The APS-C crop sensor DSLRs offered me all the image quality I'd probably ever want, plus mount compatibility with a lot of good cheap film SLR lenses.

Sony kept nibbling away at the old SLR electromechanical technology and replacing it with modern electronic technology. By 2010 they'd introduced the SLT stationary pellicle mirror technology, a hybrid between mirrorless and DSLR which allowed some of the features of mirrorless technology, such as EVF, to be introduced, while retaining the speed advantages of the old DSLR phase-based AF.

At the same time they introduced the new entirely mirrorless range of E-mount cameras, hoping that its special advantages would be enough to outweigh its AF disadvantages. They may have been surprised at the success of the E-mount, and its full frame version, the later FE-mount. They now appear to have developed E-mount AF to the verge of having good enough performance to replace the old SLT AF technology without any loss of performance. In other words they're now at, or quite close to, having the technology to drop the mirror from the A-mount SLT range.

In 2012 I upgraded from a Sony DSLR to their SLT A77, their top-of-range APS-C crop sensor camera. In other words in 2012 I went half mirrorless. By now I have quite a good stable of Sony A-mount lenses. The upgraded A77ii doesn't attract me, as the next upgrade to any model usually doesn't -- not enough improvement for the money. I like to wait at least two model upgrades before buying a new camera. I'm waiting to see how they're going to manage this important technology transition point.

They could simply drop the SLT mirror and introduce a new range of A-mount completely mirrorless bodies. They could take the opportunity to introduce a modernised backwards compatible upgrade to the A-mount with electronic iris control etc. along with the advantages of no mirror. Or they could introduce a new mirrorless A-to-E mount adapter with no performance loss at all. They could even do these things one at a time in that sequence over a few years. Plus whatever they do will be seen for the first time in the context of possible serious competition from Nikon and Canon moving into the high end mirrorless market. Important strategic decisions.

So having gone half mirrorless in 2012 I'm now in 2018 waiting to see which route Sony will provide for me to make the transition into full mirrorless. I'm quite happy to wait. For my own photographic purposes my aging and superseded A77 SLT camera is still an astonishingly good camera and a delight to use.

Don’t they do a A mount to E mount adaptor?

 

[justpix]

Hi, I went mirrorless after starting with digicams in 2003, from Minolta Dimage F300->Olympus 5050->Nikon D70->Nikon D200. The Nikons were fine, but a little too heavy, when hiking with my wife and our dog.

So, I wanted something more compact. I bought the Olympus Pen-1 mft to adapt my Leica 35 und 90 M mount lenses. This worked quite well, and I was satisfied, until SONY brought out their NEX APS-C cameras.

I moved from NEX-3->NEX5N->NEX-6, and I was happy with the adapted Leica M mount lenses. Meanwhile my Leica lens portfolio grew, and I also bought a Leica M9.

Then SONY went "FF", and I got the A7 and the A7R2, the A7R2 working much better with Leica M mount lenses than the A7, which suffered from sensor reflections ...

Meanwhile, I also bought a few native SONY/ZEISS lenses, which are very good!

What I am looking for in mirrorless cameras is high performance and compactness, due to my ROLLEI 35 (since 1975) and Leica M6 (since 1988) background.

I do not like the current trend of "FF" mirrorless bodies and lenses getting bigger and bigger!

My ideal camera combination is compact and pocketable. When I go out, I take a camera with one mounted lens with me (maybe one lens in a pocket). What I like is being able to store the camera with lens
in one pocket of my jacket. I buy jackets with deep pockets, so I can have both hands free, or at least one when carrying one piece of luggage, if I wish.

At present I am happy with my Leica M9 and the SONY A7R2. I did not go completely mirrorless, however. For cars in motion I got a Nikon D800 with the 4/70-200.

So, there are good reasons (for me) for going mirrorless, but also for keeping a DSLR for certain applications. ---

Sorry, folks, for telling you my long migration-history ...

 

[john.margetts]

For those that are picking size/weight:

(1) Is FF mirror-less camera and an equivalent lens that much lighter - there is a lot of weight in the lens?

(2) For those with FF Nikon or canon gear why not a lighter crop sensor DSLR from the same manufacturer where your current lenses would be compatible?

(3) Did anyone consider just buying a standard prime (50mm) lens for their camera to use for street/travel as surely this would be the lightest/cheapest option?

Thanks

For me, size is so much more important than weight. If I am out and about with Bestbeloved I want something that is very small and unobtrusive.

 

[LeeRatters]

Size.
Weight.
EVF & Manual Focusing Aids.
Adapting Lenses.
Tilt Screen.

For a while I started off with the A7, Voigtlander 40/1.4 & Leitz 90/2.8. Combined, the whole 'kit' weighed about the same as just the 5D2 body!

 

[JJ!]

Nikon and Sony with a 35mm lens, EM1MK11 with a 17mm

View attachment 132711

Guessing that 17mm is not a f1.4 equivalent?

 

[JJ!]

For those that are picking size/weight:

(1) Is FF mirror-less camera and an equivalent lens that much lighter - there is a lot of weight in the lens? Nope. My D750 with 70-200 2.8 is not much different from the A7iii with same lens.

(2) For those with FF Nikon or canon gear why not a lighter crop sensor DSLR from the same manufacturer where your current lenses would be compatible? Good idea in principle but if you like primes and particular lengths then you need more lenses anyway. Say I like 35mm on FF. The closest on crop is the 24mm which is fairly expensive and large for the crop body.

(3) Did anyone consider just buying a standard prime (50mm) lens for their camera to use for street/travel as surely this would be the lightest/cheapest option? Yes I use 35/50mm lenses on my D750 but size wise you can’t beat a mirrorless with pancake lenses whether that’s the 22mm on say the M50 or 35mm Samyang on the Sony.

Thanks

My answers!

 

[Cagey75]

Guessing that 17mm is not a f1.4 equivalent?

It's a 1.7. You could compare the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 instead, it'll still be a lot smaller than the others.

 

[maarten.dhaese]

Thanks for the reply, just as a matter of interest how old are you?

The reason I ask is I have a D4 & with a 24-70 f2.8 + 70-200 f2.8, flashgun, tripod and a few bits and bobs there is considerable weight in the backpack for me (Not the best of health).

I'm interested if a Mirror-less would really save that much weight with the same combination of lenses? (If i was to keep the Nikon Glass I would have to add an adaptor to the Mirror-less camera and not sure the weight saving would be that much?)

It depends which mirrorless system you would pick. If you pick Sony full frame and buy the equivalent lenses, the body will be lighter but the equivalent Sony lenses won't be (or only marginally so). You can get a small and light setup if you go for Sony with a careful selection of primes as others have pointed out, but not if you buy the Sony f/2.8 zooms.

If you pick m4/3, the "equivalent lenses" would either be:
Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 and Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8
Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 and Olympus 40-150 f/2.8
or a combination of Panasonic/Olympus.
Either combination would be a significant weight saving as compared to your Nikon f/2.8 zooms.
I have the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 and it is similar in size and weight to the Canon 70-300 IS USM f/4.0-5.6 consumer zoom. You can save even more weight in m4/3 if you don't need the f/2.8 zooms.

I put "equivalent lenses" in brackets because although the speed of the m4/3 zooms is f/2.8, the depth of field is actually f/5.6 as compared to full frame.

Fuji and crop DSLR formats would also enable you to save some weight as compared to full format DSLR. At the end of the day, weight potentially saved for an entire camera system with equivalent lenses is almost directly proportional to the size of the sensor. The smaller the sensor, the more potential weight savings can be achieved, especially at the telephoto end of the range.

I've complemented my full-frame Canon system with m4/3 a few years ago because of size, bulk and weight. After having acquired 2 systems, I expected I would shoot 80% Canon and 20% m4/3, but it's actually more than gone the other way around for me because after a while I concluded that m4/3 was more than enough for my needs and had some great additional benefits as well, all which have been pointed out by other people in the thread already.

 

[chris malcolm]

Don’t they [Sony] do a A mount to E mount adaptor?

Yes, but they were produced a long time ago, and the one with AF is now quite out of date with the latest much improved A-mount AF. Oddly Sony have never updated it, which suggests they may have been waiting for AF technology developments which they knew were in the R&D pipeline, but which taken longer than they expected. For that reason modern A-mount users would find shifting to E-mount with the existing old AF adapter would entail a loss of performance.

 

[Mr Badger]

Reasons to go mirror-less? I've given this some thought, and I can't help thinking this question is a bit like asking 'Reasons to buy a people-carrier' and 'Reasons to buy an automatic transmission car'. Does this actually mean that stage in life has been reached where convenience and comfort begins to outweigh the pleasure gained by owning and driving a performance/sports car? The stage in life where one finds that the same suspension that hugs the road and gives so much feedback and driving pleasure is actually twinging your lower back; where changing gear to suit the corner, control the speed and power through the apex is not as comfortable as selecting D and N in heavy traffic? Mirrorless camera? As Dylan Thomas put it in one of his most famous poems... Rage, Rage against the dying of the light!

 

[Raymond Lin]

Yes, but they were produced a long time ago, and the one with AF is now quite out of date with the latest much improved A-mount AF. Oddly Sony have never updated it, which suggests they may have been waiting for AF technology developments which they knew were in the R&D pipeline, but which taken longer than they expected. For that reason modern A-mount users would find shifting to E-mount with the existing old AF adapter would entail a loss of performance.

I don't think they are waiting for AF tech for the adaptor at all rather they killed the A-mount and never made an announcement. All signs points to E-mount being the future and really, the future of where Sony is headed is here now.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Reasons to mirror-less? I've given this some thought, and I can't help thinking this question is a bit like asking 'Reasons to buy a people-carrier' and 'Reasons to buy an automatic transmission car'. Does this actually mean that stage in life has been reached where convenience and comfort begins to outweigh the pleasure gained by owning and driving a performance/sports car? The stage in life where one finds that the same suspension that hugs the road and gives so much feedback and driving pleasure is actually twinging your lower back; where changing gear to suit the corner, control the speed and power through the apex is not as comfortable as selecting D and N in heavy traffic? Mirrorless camera? As Dylan Thomas put it in one of his most famous poems... Rage, Rage against the dying of the light!

That does seem like that way, most people who talk about mirrorless, they usually refer to m4/3 and the main reason is size. It seems either people are really shy taking out a big camera or too old and weak now to carry the same size body they used to be able to. Perhaps eventually I will be there too but right now, I am happy to take advantage of all that FF can offer, still mirrorless, just FF mirrorless.

If I want light, I'll just take 1 lens.

 

[Pete B]

What I don't get is why FF DSLR's are so big. Even my APS-C dwarfs my 35mm OM1n.
If you took all the film handling gubbins out of the OM1, surely there would be room for some electronics and a battery in there.

Manufacturers seem to be adding more unnecessary stuff to cameras, a bit like Microsoft office. Here's a new version with more stuff you don't really need to type a memo.

 

[Cagey75]

What I don't get is why FF DSLR's are so big. Even my APS-C dwarfs my 35mm OM1n.
If you took all the film handling gubbins out of the OM1, surely there would be room for some electronics and a battery in there.

Manufacturers seem to be adding more unnecessary stuff to cameras, a bit like Microsoft office. Here's a new version with more stuff you don't really need to type a memo.

Big = Pro don't you know?

 

[Mr Badger]

What I don't get is why FF DSLR's are so big. Even my APS-C dwarfs my 35mm OM1n.
If you took all the film handling gubbins out of the OM1, surely there would be room for some electronics and a battery in there.

Manufacturers seem to be adding more unnecessary stuff to cameras, a bit like Microsoft office. Here's a new version with more stuff you don't really need to type a memo.

I think you might have a point there, I still have a 1980 Canon A1 35mm film SLR, which, when launched in 1978, was one of the world's most technologically advanced 35mm SLRs; the first 35mm SLR camera to give us 5 exposure modes (P, AE, TV, M and stopped down AE - or P,A,S,M, etc. if you speak Nikonian), and it seems tiny when placed next to one of today's DSLRs.

Going forward in time we had the Canon EOS 30, which is still fairly small and light (and quiet) and auto focus, whilst managing to give 4.5 frames per second film shooting speed (not to mention eye-controlled focus point selection!). Given that computer chip processing power is meant to have increased significantly since the late 1970s and 1990s, and electronics are supposed to have got smaller, then what's occurring?

 

[Raymond Lin]

What I don't get is why FF DSLR's are so big. Even my APS-C dwarfs my 35mm OM1n.
If you took all the film handling gubbins out of the OM1, surely there would be room for some electronics and a battery in there.

Manufacturers seem to be adding more unnecessary stuff to cameras, a bit like Microsoft office. Here's a new version with more stuff you don't really need to type a memo.

I think you might have a point there, I still have a 1980 Canon A1 35mm film SLR, which, when launched in 1978, was one of the world's most technologically advanced 35mm SLRs; the first 35mm SLR camera to give us 5 exposure modes (P, AE, TV, M and stopped down AE - or P,A,S,M, etc. if you speak Nikonian), and it seems tiny when placed next to one of today's DSLRs. Going forward in time we had the Canon EOS 30, which is still fairly small and light (and quiet) and auto focus, whilst managing to give 4.5 frames per second film shooting speed (not to mention eye-controlled focus point selection!). Given that computer chip processing power is meant to have increased significantly since the late 1970s and 1990s, and electronics are supposed to have got smaller, then what's occurring?

Both the OM1n and Canon A1 are the older design, manual winding, not auto. I guess when they first went to the new mount with the winder the size went up with it, brighter OVF with larger OVF, little by little it got bigger and they had no reason to go smaller after that when it became the norm, even when it went digital the shape and size stuck. I am sure modern DSLR has a lot of dead space inside, plenty of gaps outside the mirror box. But miniaturisation of tech takes time and cost money so if it fits and it works then no need to make it smaller.

Although these days the space now has more than just the sensor, there is GPS, PCB, wifi, LCD, none of these were in the old SLR in the 80's.

 

[Pete B]

Although these days the space now has more than just the sensor, there is GPS, PCB, wifi, LCD, none of these were in the old SLR in the 80's.

Damn, I knew there was a reason all my old pictures were terrible

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

Although these days the space now has more than just the sensor, there is GPS, PCB, wifi, LCD, none of these were in the old SLR in the 80's.

Hence me mentioning the EOS 30 film SLR, with eye controlled auto-focus, 4+ frames per second film shooting speed, ETTL flash metering, built in pop-up flash, etc. Makes me think. As for GPS, I'd gladly swap that for eye controlled AF point selection.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Snip:

Hence me mentioning the EOS 30, with eye controlled auto-focus, 4+ frames per second film shooting speed, ETTL flash metering, built in flash, etc. Makes me think. As for GPS, I'd gladly swap that for eye controlled AF point selection.

I still have the EOD30, Eye control AF in that is not really that good, not reliable enough to rely on it. May be if they do it again, they can make it better, especially with focusing of something like the Sony of almost 700 focus points.