The decline and fall of Reflex.

[thefsb]

Reflex meaning a camera with a flapping mirror? I haven't owned one for years. But I didn't use a phone camera much until I got this one with a 53 mm equiv lens. It does snapshots in good light quite well. And it has some gimmicks I enjoy . But there are still plenty of applications for the big rig.

 

[raif71]

 

[rdenney]

Reflex meaning a camera with a flapping mirror? I haven't owned one for years. But I didn't use a phone camera much until I got this one with a 53 mm equiv lens. It does snapshots in good light quite well. And it has some gimmicks I enjoy . But there are still plenty of applications for the big rig.

That’s the meaning here. But the flapping mirror is used in a single-lens reflex camera, where the reflex viewing system looks through the lens that makes the photo. The viewing system has to be moved out of the way for making the photo. (There is at least one SLR that used a fixed beam-splitting mirror—the Canon Pellix of ancient days.)

Reflex viewing can also use a separate viewing lens, such as used in twin-lens reflex cameras like the classic Rolleiflex.

Rick “cameras are mostly named by their viewing systems” Denney

 

[thefsb]

I had always thought reflex refers to reflection. (I'm not saying you're wrong. And I don't know where I got that from.) My smartphone and FF Sony are basically video cameras that also take stills. In both, the viewing system (EVF or display panel) looks through the lens that makes the photo. So I have so far thought of the decline of reflex as referring to the dwindling advantages of SLRs relative to similar cameras without the mirror, e.g. Nikon D850 vs Z7.

 

[Wes]

I still have my D5300 DSLR (for use with some older distorted Nikkors, the Micro 50, and for its builtin GPS). You will have to "pry my F3 from my cold, dead fingers." And I enjoy playing with my 500CM Blad sometimes (it changes the way I think or "see").

Otherwise, mirrorless m43 (Panasonic Lumix with the Panny-Leica lenses) is my go to. Smaller, more portable, lots of capability and options for edge case shooting conditions.

 

[rdenney]

I had always thought reflex refers to reflection. (I'm not saying you're wrong. And I don't know where I got that from.) My smartphone and FF Sony are basically video cameras that also take stills. In both, the viewing system (EVF or display panel) looks through the lens that makes the photo. So I have so far thought of the decline of reflex as referring to the dwindling advantages of SLRs relative to similar cameras without the mirror, e.g. Nikon D850 vs Z7.

It does mean reflection. Both single and twin-lens reflex designs use a mirror to project the view onto a focusing screen. The mirror erects the image upright, so that the top of the image is at the top of the viewing screen. (But it is mirrored right to left unless flipped by use of an eye-level prism.

“View” cameras (which are usually large format) show the image directly on a screen that is in place of the film for viewing. It is upside down and mirrored right to left.

Cameras with a separate aiming device (which may or may not be optical) are called “viewfinder” cameras. If they have a distance-measuring device in that viewfinder, the term becomes “rangefinder”. Many cameras of old had several systems. A press camera like a Speed Graphic can be used as a view camera, but most had a non-optical “sport finder”, some had an optical viewfinder, and some had an optional secondary rangefinder.

Cameras with digital sensors that can be used for viewing and taking have the option of digital viewing systems. None of the traditional terms align with that without qualification, and both “mirrorless” and “electronic viewfinder” have emerged.

Not that I expect popular taxonomies to be internally consistent.

Rick “who has examples of all of the above in his collection, but prefers SLRs for most things” Denney

 

[Chromatischism]

I am not a fan of calling something what it isn't, so I think "mirror-less" is silly and needs to be retired.

Like I'm a non-Truck Driver or a breastless human

So instead of Digital Single Lens Reflex, how about:

Digital Electronic View Camera
Digital Interchangeable Lens Camera
etc

 

[Wes]

you are decades too late - the acronym SLR was followed by DSLR, and no hyphen in mirrorless

the acronym TLR was followed by nothing

 

[Chromatischism]

you are decades too late - the acronym SLR was followed by DSLR

In my post:

So instead of Digital Single Lens Reflex

and no hyphen in mirrorless

That was added merely for emphasis.

 

[thefsb]

I am not a fan of calling something what it isn't, so I think "mirror-less" is silly and needs to be retired.

Yeah, it's dumb af and not just for that reason. Cameras without mirrors is a very board category, might as well be non-reflex cameras.

 

[thefsb]

you are decades too late - the acronym SLR was followed by DSLR, and no hyphen in mirrorless

the acronym TLR was followed by nothing

A digital SLR is also an SLR, isn't it?

 

[Blumlein 88]

The question is does anyone misunderstand when you say Mirrorless camera? The answer generally is no, and it therefore communicates the info you wish for the word to communicate. Somewhere down the line it might get dropped when there is no SLR and no mirrors anymore. Or it may not, lots of things are named in a bit off manner and why is forgotten.

For instance touchdown in American Football. Everyone has heard it and thinks nothing of it as they know what it is. But step back as a modern fan and you'd have to wonder..............why the heck is it called a touch down? Of course if you know the American game was heavily influenced and grew out of rugby then it makes perfect sense.

 

[mhardy6647]

Given the discussion of mirrorless above -- the term wireless (as in radio or as in, well, you know... wireless ) fairly leaps to mind.

That said, the term horseless carriage does seem to have fallen somewhat out of favor.

 

[thefsb]

The question is does anyone misunderstand when you say Mirrorless camera?

Not if we are being pedantic, which is a game everyone can enjoy, no?

 

[rdenney]

Digital cameras only expand traditional taxonomies when they have digital/electronic viewing systems, because traditional taxonomies are based on viewing systems.

“Mirrorless” is a qualification on SLR, it seems to me, whether or not “SLR” is specifically included. A mirrorless viewfinder camera has no meaning—it was already mirrorless. A mirrorless SLR views through the taking lens, as any SLR must, by definition. The problem is with “reflex”, which doesn’t exist in a mirrorless camera.

But everyone knows what you mean.

Rick “once proudly known as the ‘Pig of Pontification’ on a Usenet newsgroup” Denney

 

[Wes]

I suggest using functional groupings, rather than phylogenetic lineages.

 

[rdenney]

I suggest using functional groupings, rather than phylogenetic lineages.

The problem with terminology is that experts don't control it.

Rick "many waves have crashed on that rocky shore" Denney

 

[FrantzM]

The single Lens Reflex was a solution to a problem: How to accurately see what the lens saw. The problem is no more ... Mirrorless have the advantage of simplicity to boot. No more complicated mechanisms to move the mirror up and down... No more bulky prism to correct the view from the lenses..

Putting aside the unfortunate taxonomy.. "mirrorless" are here to stay and will define the landscape in pro and advanced amateurs. For most people , the quality offered by today's better smartphone camera systems is all that is needed.
On the mirrorless side Sony has a serious advance on everybody else... Interestingly the #2 , at least in the mind of enthusiasts is Fuji. The 2 DSLR kings : Canon and Nikon are chasing Sony. They haven't produce anything to dethrone the A7Siii...
Just like for Vinyl, some will continue to lament the "organic" look of film, the end is near. No more film, no more reflex.

 

[rdenney]

The single Lens Reflex was a solution to a problem: How to accurately see what the lens saw. The problem is no more ... Mirrorless have the advantage of simplicity to boot. No more complicated mechanisms to move the mirror up and down... No more bulky prism to correct the view from the lenses..

But in fulfilling one set of requirements, it violates another set of requirements. It's impossible to see what's in focus, because apparent focus is limited by the low resolution of the EVF or screen. So, you have to have additional visual clutter to check focus, such as focus peaking, or zooming the image in. That's fine in some scenarios, but in most active situations, all that stuff just separates me from the subject. Then there's the (albeit short) time lag and smear of the EVF. Mirrorless is designed around the expectation that autofocus works perfectly. But then I have to move the focus points around to make sure what I want focused is in focus--more slowdown. What's supposed to be faster ends up being slower.

Meanwhile, I can focus an adapted Zeiss Sonnar from 50 years ago, that has a really special rendering, using the split-image focus screen on my Pentax 645z, and get perfect focus before I can even find the menu item that turns on focus peaking.

With a sensor the size of a deer tick and the focal length of lens that goes with it, like what's in my iphone, nearly everything is in focus anyway and I don't much have to worry about it. But with a 44x33 sensor, my depth of field might be razor-thin.

(Part of a test series. The flower in front of the boot anvil was the focus point. Pentax 645z, Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 at f/2.8, manually focused, of course.)

(Even tighter, despite the sensor that is only 24x36. Canon 5D, Tamron SP 90/2.5 Macro, at f/2.5., again manually focused, of course.)

Timing was critical. In both cases, the breeze was moving the target flower into and out of focus seemingly at random. I had to be able to predict when it would pass through the focus plane and push the shutter button in time to anticipate that.

Rick "give me a good split-image focus screen in an optical finder system any day" Denney

 

[audio2design]

But then I have to move the focus points around to make sure what I want focused is in focus--more slowdown.

With a sensor the size of a deer tick and the focal length of lens that goes with it, like what's in my iphone, nearly everything is in focus anyway and I don't much have to worry about it. But with a 44x33 sensor, my depth of field might be razor-thin.

On the first note, that is what touch screens are for

On the second note, you could just stop down the 44*33 lens end up in the same situation as the iPhone, but then you lose your speed of course and the effect you were trying for. Let's hope we get more computational photography in high end cameras.