Update: The Grinch and I have been emailing back and forth after I posted this email. Our cordial conversation would make a good article all by itself, as it speaks to something the camera companies really need to figure out if they want to grow the photography market.
------------------
"As the move to mirrorless requires new lenses , I feel extorted by Japan Camera Corp.
Add to this the huge price for a piece that mainly consists cheap plastics.
Except for the electronic silent shutter , mirrorless cameras don't offer any advantages.They are just as unpocketable as Dslrs.
Electronic displays on cameras feel bad compared to optical viewfinders.
No matter how much you trade journalists trump it up , we consumers wish the mirrorless to go bankrupt."
Message exactly as received via email; no editing.
------------------
Oh dear, someone had a bad day. I often don't know how (or whether I even should) respond to such emails.
I need to point out that I don't know exactly what camera he is thinking of that could possibly fulfill his antiquarian demands. It would have to (1) not require new lenses, (2) be made entirely of metal (heavy!), (3) have an optical viewfinder, and (4) fit in a pocket. Oh, and it probably also has to be inexpensive to avoid any "extortion."
Has any interchangeable lens camera ever met that product definition? The closest I can come to anything recent that might even begin to please this person might be a Fujifilm X100VI, only that camera has a fixed lens and is also unobtainium at the moment. Not to mention the fact that it's expensive for what it is.
Obviously, if enough people share this view of the camera market, the camera companies are in deep trouble. But the thing is, if this writer's demands were to be met by the camera companies, the companies would be in even bigger trouble, because basically once customers have bought an inexpensive-old-lens-metal-pocket beast, why would that group buy anything else?
Change is never without downsides. Change also won't continue happening if there aren't significant upsides for both producer and user. So you have to evaluate any major change (e.g. DSLR to mirrorless) or even minor change (e.g. Z6 to Z6II) in terms of how the downside and upside balance. Too much downside and not enough upside means that potential buyers sit things out. Lots of upside with little downside, and the camera maker will have a hit on their hands. What I find interesting is how many more people are fighting against all change now and believe that there is some nirvana that will happen in a completely static market.
Everything you see around you—roads, autos, computers, wireless communications, local stores, and way too much more to list here—came about because our predecessors all dreamed, planned, then got together and made then distributed new things. Things that were meaningfully better than what came before.
When I started sansmirror.com back in 2009 (!) I got a huge pushback from sated DSLR users who felt that they didn't need anything that mirrorless cameras provided. What's interesting today is that the primary response I get from someone who finally transitioned from DSLR to mirrorless is that they now clearly see the benefits. Such as autofocus anywhere in the frame, seeing not just the exposure but the additional rendering elements (white balance, profiles, etc.) as you compose, pre-release capture capabilities, and much more. The primary drawback? You had to buy into a new system, with an emphasis on the word "buy".
As a sports and wildlife photographer, I'd even argue that the other usually complained about attribute of mirrorless—that it has an electronic and not optical viewfinder—is actually another benefit. True, early mirrorless cameras had pretty terrible, distracting EVFs. Today, however, I find that I can compose in situations where an optical viewfinder would have me guessing, without any real other drawback (a DSLR wouldn't even focus in those low-light situations). For example, outside of the daylight hours in Africa: since I'm seeing what the camera is going to record rather than the completely dark optical view, I can actually frame. Heck, in some cases, I can't even see the subject clearly without the camera. Since so much of animal behavior happens in these edge-of-day situations, mirrorless opens up new possibilities for me.
In closing, let me take on the commenter's claims individually:
- "...the move to mirrorless requires new lenses" — No, it doesn't. It requires a mount adapter, sometimes bundled free with a mirrorless camera. Of course, most of us have discovered that the newer mirrorless lenses are simply better, because the change in mount and and simpler alignment means that quality and consistency is better with a mirrorless lens. Still, you don't have to use one. (Yes, that's true for OMDS and Sony users, as well, though their adapters are now long forgotten.)
- "...huge price" — Most price complaints ignore inflation. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G introduced in 2008 was US$485 then. Adjusted for inflation, that would currently be US$710. Nikon just introduced the 50mm f/1.4 for the Z-mount at what price? US$499. Oops.
- "...for a piece that mainly consists cheap plastics" — Two problems here. First is the use of the word "cheap." That's a total made up notion by the writer, as they have no idea how inexpensive or expensive the components used in modern gear are. The bigger issue is the oft-repeated myth that metal is better than polycarbonate. For some things yes, for other things no. Indeed, if you were to dissect that 50mm f/1.4 for the Z-mount I just referred to, you'll see that the polycarbonate outside is there to protect a metal frame inside. Why? Because when you drop metal and it hits something it distorts and doesn't return to form, which would make the lens a complete teardown to fix. When you drop polycarbonate, it either bounces back to form or breaks. In the case of a break, that level of fall pretty much would have totaled a metal lens, but really only requires outer shell replacement for most modern lens designs.
- "Except for the electronic silent shutter , mirrorless cameras don't offer any advantages." — Not even close to correct. I've already alluded to some, but there are plenty more. One really big advantage is that manufacturing alignments are easier to get right with mirrorless, so the actual lens mount and image sensor tend to be more precisely positioned, an important attribute as pixel counts go up. But there are plenty of other advantages (again, too numerous to list here).
- "They are just as unpocketable as Dslrs." — I'm not sure DSLRs were ever contemplated to be pocketable; nor were film SLRs. However, some mirrorless cameras have been (at least jacket pocketable). So just on the premise alone, the writer's argument is incorrect. Apparently the writer also doesn't want a high-capability, interchangeable lens camera, but rather something he can just carry in his pocket. Well, there's always smartphones, but considering how anti-tech his sentiments seem to be, I'm sure he would have plenty of reasons to avoid using one.
- "Electronic displays on cameras feel bad compared to optical viewfinders." — The odd thing here is the use of the word "feel." Feel isn’t really an optical characteristic. As I noted earlier, many early mirrorless cameras had EVFs that were lacking in some way. Current state-of-the-art mirrorless cameras have some pretty incredible viewfinders, though. The Z6III's EVF is truly remarkable when you're photographing in HEIF or producing N-Log video. I could also point out that DSLR viewfinders had plenty of issues: alignment, lack of camera information that could be clearly seen, adjustments for scene brightness that made manual focusing unreliable, and more.
- "No matter how much you trade journalists trump it up..." Ah, the oblique insult. At least I suspect the writer believes that "trade journalist" is a derogatory. Otherwise there's no reason to put the word "trade" in front of "journalist." I've gotten very used to being insulted, from the subtle to some very nasty responses. It started back in 1994 when I first started supporting Nikon cameras on the Internet and has continued with my Internet presence through today. Yes, I take strong, clear stands. But I also will self-correct if it becomes clear I'm wrong. Still, I have to wonder why some people even bother reading my work, let alone responding to it (the writer in question has been reading me for some time, as he pops off with a negative email regarding one of my articles every now and then; he probably already has his email client open again ;~). If you don't accept, believe, or trust what I write, aren't you wasting your time reading it?
- "...we consumers wish the mirrorless to go bankrupt." — See the irony there? He's a consumer who doesn't want to consume. Moreover, he is overstating his case by using the plural, as though he represents everyone. He clearly doesn't, since 4.76 million folk bought a mirrorless camera in 2023, and 2024 had already matched that number by October.
The email I'm responding to with this article appears to be from a neophobe ("a person who dislikes or fears anything new"). He's certainly entitled to be one. What I'm puzzled about, however, is why is he using a computer to read a Web site about a technology-driven product and using a modern communication form (email) to express his neophobia. He's clearly not going to convince me (a neophile) to change what I write, so I just have to take this as more of the angry acting out that seems to be one of the clear consequences of the anonymous Internet. (I'll repeat: I was not for an anonymous Internet when those discussions were happening.)
Sadly, by reaching out to me with all these what I consider to be non-supportable gripes, it just reminds me I have to do an even better job of presenting the case for the products he seems to want to go away.
