How To Properly Design A Mirrorless Camera
Nov 9, 2015
Udi Tirosh
Udi Tirosh is an entrepreneur, photography inventor, journalist, educator, and writer based in Israel. With over 25 years of experience in the photo-video industry, Udi has built and sold several photography-related brands. Udi has a double degree in mass media communications and computer science.
Share:
It seems that with the rise of phone and mirrorless, DSLRs are dying, or with eve of DSLRs comes a new dawn of mirrorless cameras. But many still argue that Mirrorless is not there yet. To all those advocates, commercial photographer and educator Ming Thein has some ideas on where mirrorless should be going to become completely mainstream domination.
Here is the interesting bit though Ming doesn’t say that Mirrorless is bad, and after using and reviewing over 20 cameras, he know. He is only saying that no camera maker has enough understanding to mix all the right ingredients into a single camera. If there was a Mirrorless superset that had all the good features from each camera, it would have been enough:
I still have not found a complete replacement for the DSLR, and I suspect there are many other photographers in the same situation. It isn’t for want of trying or stubbornness; it’s because the product simply does not exist. We’re not asking for the unicorn here, either: there are ergonomic/UI/UX/engineering solutions that have already been implemented and received well in other cameras – just not in the same one
More interesting is that in many cases Ming does not hold a finger against the imaging technology, but rather at UI, UX and ergonomics issues, that could (should?) have been migrated from the older and more experienced (d)SLR market. Here are some critical examples:
Sometimes the problems are because there’s been too much creativity and desire to change things for the sake of changing them: the Leica T’s UI was a great idea, but the ergonomics are a disaster and a good example of form over function. The Sigma Quattro is just uncomfortable to hold and pack, period. The Leica SL should just have been Q with a lens mount – but no, they started from scratch with the firmware and design and missed some fundamental things like the fact that the grip wasn’t really the right shape for 1+kg lenses, and exposure compensation is a critical photographic control
Ming goes on to list the features that he wants from a Mirrorless system. He covers ergonomics, Autofocus, Live view/ EVF, Sensor and image quality, system and Power, as well some miscellaneous items. And if I was a camera maker, I would sure as heck read it today.
[Close, but no cigar: how to design mirrorless right | Ming Thein]
P.S. of course, some would always think differently.
Udi Tirosh
Udi Tirosh is an entrepreneur, photography inventor, journalist, educator, and writer based in Israel. With over 25 years of experience in the photo-video industry, Udi has built and sold several photography-related brands. Udi has a double degree in mass media communications and computer science.
Related Posts
Sandbags 101 – types of sandbags and how to use them properly
Lessons on properly lighting dark-skinned actors from “Insecure” director of photography Ava Berkofsky
How to properly dodge and burn your way to stunning landscape photos
This is how you use a light meter properly – they’re really not that difficult or scary
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
4 responses to “How To Properly Design A Mirrorless Camera”
Canon and Nikon could learn something about designing a proper mirror less camera….
So could Sony.
I think he’s right and wrong. Lots of things common in mirrorless systems UX could be viewed as “flawed” by dSLR owners looking to replace their systems… I have my own share or complaints.
Problem is, he’s not doing anything different than what previous generations did: this isn’t what is needed to get mirrorless “there”, this is his take on a perfect mirrorless system, period. Which is fine, provided that it’s labeled that way.
Because let’s just be honest, no dSLRs offers all the perfect UX and features he’s asking on his post. No camera in existence, more accurately. It’s always a mixed bag with strong and weak points.
See that several of his “wants” are conflicting. You want more battery, but you don’t want a taller/bigger camera – you want a new magical battery that lasts longer while being smaller. You want weather proofing and a top-view LCD but also for a personal take on organization of physical dials and controls – there’s no space for all that without making sacrifices. Lots of other pointers are also personal (he doesn’t like it, so he wants it changed), and others might not be there for mirrorless cameras, but they are also not there for dSLRs.
Most importantly, people have to understand that mirrorless cameras are not only for those who are looking to switch from their dSLR systems. Yes, I definitely agree that improvements can be made, and they will be made over time. The big thing dSLRs have on their side is years of tweaking and improvements.
I see this a lot from dSLR users who deep down, just don’t want to think of changing their own systems. If people just took a honest look on things, I think pretty much everyone would at least be amazed how fast mirrorless systems developed over very few years. That you can get a full frame sensor shoved in a piece that is half or a third the thickness of a dSLR delivering awesome results should be very surprising.
But I’d have to remind Ming that several of the stuff he’s asking for took years and years of development for dSLRs to “get”. If you are going to put this high of a bar for a new and improved system to be used, might as well stick to dSLRs ’till the end of your career (much like some photographers sticks to film to the end of theirs). Leave mirrorless for new photographers.
I do agree though that small adjustments software side could do wonders to some mirrorless cameras. I just don’t pretend it’s easy to do – in fact, I’m pretty sure that several of the stuff he’s asking for will require sacrifices that could end up resulting in worse problems.
You see, it’s not impossible to grab a bunch of proprietary tech, the strong points of all systems, miniaturize it to proper sizes, use the best materials, make it all perfect according to one photographer’s demands, and turn it into a system. It’s not impossible. But it might make it prohibitively expensive, and it’ll probably open up to another round of complaints.
People have to understand that mirrorless are not only aiming to trample dSLRs, or be perfect on technical specs – they first need to be a marketable product. Just like dSLRs, mirrorless cameras will be a game of compromises vs costs. Different models will be made because different photographers have different demands. Companies are trying different things because the concept is relatively new. We’ll get to a more standardized pack with time.
Deeply dislike the image quality of the viewfinder of current mirrorless, looks pixelized and the colours are very off and far from what you see. That’s (for me) the major turn off of mirrorless. Second their life battery span, short and miserable.