ISO is a property of recording photography; it represents sensitivity to capture light. Before the days of digital cameras, all photographic film was categorized with an ISO rating. Digital cameras have an adjustable ISO. Increasing digital ISO is primarily a matter of increasing the gain of the electronics signal. As with most electronics, gain increases not just the signal but also signal noise (stuff you don’t want). However, many digital cameras today have excellent signal-to-noise ratio.
In the days of film cameras, photographers might “push process” film to achieve higher ISO. ISO 400 was commonly pushed to ISO 800; that’s a difference of 1 f-stop.
Today, using digital cameras, 1-stop is child’s play. Digital cameras can provide 6 f-stops or more …. ISO 51,200 or better. The results can be cleaner (less noise) than the old ISO 400 film pushed to 800.
I shot the image here at ISO 5000 … that was ten years ago.
(Intonition Band, at night under a tent at Fraklin County Fair)
Two new Canon camera bodies have been long rumored to be released soon. For several months, rumors have further suggested the release announcement will coincide with the Summer Olympics 2024. I can only guess this is because some photographers will be shooting the new camera – or cameras – at the Olympics.
Latest rumor suggests Canon will announce one or both cameras on July 17.
The name designation “1” indicates a flagship camera, the best Canon has to offer. That’s the EOS R1.
The EOS R5 mark II is an expected refresh of the very popular EOS R5 that was released four years ago.
Fifteen years ago, this question was very significant (for most cameras) as an indication of wear and remaining functional life. If you were to purchase a used camera, you would certainly want to know the answer to this question. Today, this is not as true as it used to be.
Mechanical/moving parts are subject to some degree of wear. Metal parts suffer from friction. Plastic parts may become brittle. They eventually wear out. Get maintenance or get rid of it. But many of today’s digital cameras don’t have moving parts and do not suffer the same effects of wear. They have electronic sensors and electronic shutters.
Cameras have commonly remembered how many times the shutter has been actuated (how many photos have been captured). Through various means, you may be able to retrieve that information from a camera. In many digital cameras today, shutter count information may not be available at all. Furthermore, digital cameras are often used to capture video (rather than still photos) and the shutter count isn’t useful information.
That being said, I recently decided to sell a DSLR from 2015. Any DSLR certainly has mechanical parts and the shutter typically has an expected lifespan. As I had used this camera for still photography (not video), the shutter count is useful information. But retrieving this information from the camera proved a bit difficult. Here are several methods that generally might succeed, but in the case of my camera, I found that only one of these methods succeeded.
If you have software that shows EXIF information within an image, every digital photo may include the shutter count. Didn’t work. While all digital cameras report EXIF, not all cameras include shutter count in that data. (Online comment: “Last camera from Canon with shutter count in EXIF was EOS 1D II N.”)
Some websites: you upload an image from your camera and it will read shutter count from the EXIF information Didn’t work. See explanation above.
FreeShutterCount (freeware) Requires installing some 3-rd party USB drivers … no thanks (I’m not going to risk installing some unverified USB drivers on my computer.)
EOSinfo (freeware) Doesn’t work with my camera model.
EOS Digital Info (freeware) Doesn’t work with my camera model.
DIRE Studio Shutter Count (freeware) Apple/Mac only; I don’t have any Apple/Mac devices.
Tornado EOS Multiple people have reported this software contains malware.
An online search for “expected shutter lifetime Canon EOS cameras” tells me that this camera model should happily provlde 200,000 shutter actuations without any problems. My camera has 30,000 shutter actuations.
To stabilize a camera for video filming, we have seen several types of stabilization: (1) Large Steadycam body-mounted on a vest. (This was invented around 1975.) (2) Hand-held stabilizers that rely upon counter-balance weight (3) Computerized gimbal operated with two hands and support cinema cameras such as RED, Sony, Canon, etc (4) Computerized gimbal that can be held with just one hand and support smaller cameras (5) Very small devices including camera and gimbal with a total weight of 16 oz or less. (6) In-camera mechanical techniques for stabilzation, either lens-shift or sensor shift (7) Digital image stabilization
Computerized gimbals have been a game changer, invented around 2012. The larger 2-handed category has been dominated by Freefly MoVI series and DJI Ronin series of products. These systems do not include camera, video monitoring, or follow-focus.
Today, DJI introduced another game-changer – the new DJI Ronin 4D. This is no longer just a stabilization device, rather it is a complete system, including the camera. Surely many film-makers will not readily abandon their trusted cameras and lenses, but at first glance, Ronin 4D does seem to be a game-changer.
Cost: The complete system is less than $10K. Compare this to assembling a comparable system from separate components. Either a RED Komodo or Canon C300 Mark III will set you back more than $8K and that does not even include any lens. The built-in ND filters is a pretty big deal; can potentially eliminate need for a bulky matte box. The LIDAR system looks truly amazing.
The Ronin 4D Cinematic Imaging System includes:
Cinema camera: 6K @ 120 FPS, or 8K @ 75 fps, or
10-bit Pro-Res
Six built-in ND filters
Computerized 6-Axis stabilization gimbal
7″ touchscreen video monitor, detachable and wireless
LIDAR focusing system
long-range wireless 1080 video transmit (with encryption and frequency hopping)
A friend had trouble emailing photos from his smartphone. His photos were more than eight megapixels and he was trying to email two dozen of them in a single email. His email did not want to send an email totaling 400 megabytes. The resolution of his smartphone camera captured far more pixels than he needed and the files were … not small.
Problem #2
If you upload a small photo to an online service, particularly social media, that service will likely attempt to enlarge the photo … and you may not like the quality of the result. While shrinking a photo typically does not have a negative impact on photo quality, enlarging can possibly have undesirable results because the enlarging process is attempting to invent pixels that did not originally exist.
Display on a smartphone
If you primarily look at photos on your phone, then 5 megapixels is more than you need.
Consider the display resolution of some popular smartphones:
Google Pixel 3 is 1080 x 2160 … 2.3 MP
iPhone X is 1125 x 2436 … 2.7 MP
Razor Phone 2 is 1440 x 2560 … 3.6 MP
Samsung Galaxy S9 is 1440 x 2960 … 4.2 MP
Print
Printing a photo onto paper is the most demanding application. As a general rule of thumb, high-quality printing requires between 240 to 300 pixels per printed inch. The bigger your print, the more pixels you need.
Example: A 5-megapixel photo should print well up to 8×10 inches
(8×240) x (10×240) = 4.6 megapixels
Facebook
The recommended upload size is 1,200 × 630 pixels. You can certainly upload a larger photo, but Facebook will automatically shrink it.
Instagram
By design, Instagram favors square photos. You can post a rectangular photo, the Instagram default is a square crop. Upon first uploading your photo, you have an opportunity to undo that crop, but you cannot subsequently edit the photo to change it after your posting is complete.
The recommended size ix 1080 × 1080 pixels. You can certainly upload a larger photo, but Instagram will automatically shrink it. If you upload a rectangular photo, it will be cropped to width 1080 pixels.
Twitter
Recommended upload size is 1200 × 675 (aspect ratio: 16:9): You can certainly upload a larger photo, but Twitter will automatically shrink it.
Display on a tablet
Consider three tablets.
Amazon Kindle Fire HDX 8.9” : 2560 × 1600 pixels, 8:5 aspect ratio
Apple iPad 10.2” (2019) : 2160 × 1620 pixels, 4:3 aspect ratio
Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.1” (2019) : 1920 × 1200 pixels, 16:10 aspect ratio
If you size an image 2560×1600, it will display full-screen on the Kindle HDX 8.9” but may seem too large for both the iPad 10.2” and the Galaxy Tab A 10.1”. Not to worry, the tablet includes the necessary smarts to dynamically make your photo fit the device screen without modifying your stored photo.
You can certainly store photos with higher resolution than the device display; the only consequence is that the photos consume more storage space than is necessary.
eBook, part 1 – cover photo displayed in the ebook store
For the Kindle store, Amazon recommends 2500 x 1563 pixels.
eBook, part 2 – photos inside the book
In large part, this comes back tablet display screens. As the Kindle and iPad (described previously) are similar regarding 1600 pixels in the smaller dimension, you might size your photos to 1600 pixels. Amazon recommends twice this, 3200 pixels, but I don’t know why.
Upon uploading your eBook to the Kindle store, your photos will be automatically compressed. My latest ebook manuscript (with photos) was more than 12 megabytes before submitting, but Kindle compression reduced it to 4 megabytes.
The amount of royalty you earn from each book sale may be reduced because total eBook file size may incur a larger “delivery fee” per individual sale, perhaps fifteen cents per megabyte. An e-book with many high-resolution photos may incur a higher delivery charge and therefore reduce the royalties paid to the author.
The day of the new Mavic 2 release one week ago, numerous sites and YouTube channels already had reviews prepared. DJI had judiciously provided new Mavic 2 drones to people who would do these reviews. I have no intention of rehashing that stuff. I am interested specifically in the camera performance. Because I am largely interested in image quality, we’re talking about the Mavic 2 Pro, not the Mavic 2 Zoom. As for video quality, we’ll have to leave that for another day.
For high-quality images, DJI now provides this choice: Phantom 4 Pro, Mavic 2 Pro, Inspire 2 with Zenmuse X5s, Inspire 2 with Zenmuse X7. The unique value proposition of any Mavic is that it folds down to a size that can fit in a camera bag. A Mavic drone and remote controller requires physical space similar to a DSLR camera body and a zoom lens.
For photographers, is the upgrade worth it, from Mavic Pro to Mavic 2 Pro?
Yes, after brief testing this morning, there is no doubt in my mind.
With the advent of Mavic 2 Pro, the camera difference between Mavic and Phantom has been erased. Both the variable aperture (f/2.8 to f/11) and the sensor resolution (5472×3648) are on par with the pre-existing Phantom 4 Pro and superior to the original Mavic Pro. Note that this is a 2:3 aspect ratio compared to a 3:4 aspect ratio of Mavic Pro, Mavic 2 Zoom, and Zenmuse X5s.
Note that camera is new and not exactly the same as P4P. DJI bought a majority stake in Hasselblad a couple years ago and this apparently is the first fruits of that partnership. (Yes, DJI essentially owns the legendary Hasselblad company.)
According to the numbers, the angle of view is a bit different, though I did not notice during actual use. Mavic 2 Pro provides a FOV equivalent to 28mm lens on a full-frame camera. This is narrower than the original Mavic Pro’s equivalent 26mm and narrower than the Phantom 4 Pro’s equivalent 24mm. Despite being less wide angle, vertical lines can still keystone strongly and you may choose to correct for that in post processing.
Here are the problems with Mavic Pro that I hope are improved with Mavic 2 Pro.
Dynamic range in the Mavic Pro was not very good. In high-contrast scenes, highlights can easily blow out and/or the shadows block up. To mitigate this, I have sometimes captured multiple RAW exposures and then post-processed for HDR.
Using RAW capture, if the highlights do not blow out entirely, the camera still fails to resolve details in the highlights. For example, houses with clapboard siding in full sun – the separation of the clapboards may be entirely absent in the image. This seems surprising to me … if the story is true that the RGB color space has finer granularity in the highlight range compared to the shadow range.
Image noise, particularly in shadows. To mitigate this, I have relied upon heavy-handed post-processing. While noise reduction in Adobe Lightroom is very good, there is a price to pay – higher levels of noise reduction can deteriorate details throughout the brightness range.
With high magnification, images lack sharpness. In post-processing, I have found it necessary to apply twice as much sharpening compared to my hand-held cameras.
Color from RAW images is typically worse than any other camera I have used (except perhaps GoPro Hero3) and the images require heavy-handed post-processing. Of course, RAW images from any camera will always require some degree of post-processing.
Blue/red chromatic aberrations. I commonly see this around white baluster railings. Lightroom’s ability to mitigate chromatic aberration typically fails to resolve the problem.
In summary, the Mavic 2 Pro does achieve small improvements in all of these problem areas. So let’s look at some actual images from the new Mavic 2 Pro compared to the original Mavic Pro.
Harbor photographed with both drones
In high-contrast situations such as this scene with white boats and white houses, Mavic 2 Pro still has difficulty retaining detail in the highlights, but is not so bad that it requires HDR techniques to overcome it. It is still necessary to reduce the exposure by 1/3 stop to protect the highlights (this does not jeopardize shadow details) and also apply highlight reduction in post-processing.
[Click on an image to see the full resolution.]
[Images shown here are all RAW and individually post-processed to the very best of my ability using Adobe Lightroom.]
Detail in highlight areas
Image sharpness
Noise reduction is still necessary but far less than with the original Mavic Pro.
Color of RAW images is much better, requires less correction.
Here’s an example (not a particularly good one) that shows Mavic Pro was unable to resolve the balusters and suffered chromatic aberration. Mavic 2 Pro did not exhibit either of these problems.
Click on the image to see larger version
Finally, a few notes that do not regard image capture.
If you’ve ever fumbled with the gimbal clamp on the original Mavic Pro, or worse yet have forgotten to remove the clamp before powering on the drone, rest assured that the new Mavic 2 Pro does provide an improvement. The gimbal clamp is integrated into the protective dome cover – remove the dome necessarily removes the gimbal clamp. See the photo below showing both the Mavic Pro and the Mavic 2 Pro.
Gimbal clamp
Unlike the original Mavic Pro, the Mavic 2 includes 8GB on-board memory in addition to a micro SD slot. To access this memory from another device, connect a USB cable (included) to the Mavic 2 USB-C port and turn on power to the Mavic 2. (Remember to remove the gimbal clamp before turning on the Mavic.) After having inserted a micro SD card, the DJI GO app prompted whether to use that instead of the on-board memory. I am assuming that we must select one or the other and automatic switch-over is not supported, but I don’t know that for certain.
The transmission system between the drone and the controller is theoretically the most robust of any DJI product to date. Mavic 2 utilized second generation Occusync 2.0, while the Phantom line has yet to adopt the Occusync transmission system. Although Occusync 2.0 reportedly can operate at distances up to five miles, I personally have no need of that. Increased robustness of the signal is welcome, as I have seen unexplainable video signal loss when using the original Mavic Pro.
Why would you want to trigger your camera when the camera is not in your hand? The most common reason is to make a selfie … where the resulting image doesn’t look like you are holding the camera at arm’s length. Here’s another example from personal experience about one month ago. On a pedestrian walkway that crossed a highway, my photo opportunity was inhibited by a tall fence; to make the photo, I placed the camera atop a telescoping pole and extended it above my head and above the height of the fence. (See the photo at the end of this article.)
Camera control via mobile app
Here are four methods to make a photo while the camera is not in your hand, beginning with the most rudimentary and finishing with the most sophisticated
1) Self-timer (Old-fashioned method #1)
Most people are likely familiar with this. Place the camera on a stable surface, push the button, then run away from your camera to join your family and friends in the captured photograph. Self-timer is a relatively ubiquitous feature, though it may be seldom used today by your average selfie photographer who doesn’t mind the look inherent in holding a camera with an outstretched arm. Every camera I have ever owned has included a self-timer,; he Android camera app in my smartphone is no exception.
This is a physical cable that must be connected to the camera. Although this is inexpensive and is still available for many cameras, it has fallen out of favor because it is inherently limited by the length of the cable.
Mechanical cable release
Before the digital camera revolution, most professional cameras included a threaded hole to accept a universal cable release. It was a simple mechanical plunger. Experienced photographers carried a spare release cable because sooner or later the threaded connection to the camera was likely to break
While the mechanical cable release was both universal (compatible with most cameras) and ubiquitous, it was largely supplanted by an electronic cable release. The design is more like a light switch – the cable contains electrically conductive wires as part of an open circuit and pushing the button closes the circuit. This allows for longer cables and sophisticated external triggers (e.g. intervalometer, motion-activated trigger, etc). Unlike the universal mechanical cable, the connection to the camera is specific to the particular camera manufacturer; you need a cable designed to fit your camera.
For making selfie photographs with your smartphone, some selfie sticks include an electronic shutter release cable that connects a handle-mounted trigger button to the phone/camera. However, as the cable is subject to some physical stress, a wireless trigger is preferable and we consider that next.
3) Wireless shutter release
This achieves all the same goals as an electronic cable release but without the limitation of cable. These devices are widely available today for many cameras.
Some cameras include an infrared sensor and can be triggered using a remote infrared trigger. Some cameras can be controlled by a universal infrared trigger (not camera-specific) which may cost less than $15. Other cameras require use of a remote trigger specifically from the camera manufacturer. In either case, because the communication uses infrared light, it generally requires unobstructed line-of-sight between the remote and the camera.
Some cameras include wi-fi and and the ability to trigger the camera from a remote device via wi-fi. This does not have the line-of-sight limitation of infrared.
Similarly, if your camera supports Bluetooth, you may find a remote trigger that uses Bluetooth. For making selfies with a smartphone camera, some selfie sticks include a wireless Bluetooth trigger mounted in the handle. The distance limit for Bluetooth is typically far less than wi-fi. A Bluetooth remote might function at a maximum distance of 30 feet (9 meters), while a wi-fi remote might function at ten times that distance.
If your camera does not include infrared, wi-fi, or Bluetooth, you may be able to use a radio trigger, which consists of two parts, a transmitter and a receiver. I’ve used at least two different types. One is designed only to trigger the camera. The other (which I still use) is designed primarily a flash trigger, where one device mounts on the camera hot-shoe and a second mounts underneath a remote flash/strobe. However, a third device (all three are identical) can be used as a remote trigger for both the camera and the flash. As a prerequisite, the camera must have a special port/socket to connect an external trigger (the same port used in method #2 above) and the device mounted to the hot-shoe must also connect to the trigger socket.
In some cases, you may be able to wirelessly control camera functions far beyond basic shutter trigger. The GoPro Hero (versions 3, 4, 5, and 6) includes a smart remote that provides limited control of some camera features.
4) Smartphone or tablet app
An application for a smartphone (or other mobile device) can provide the ultimate remote control, including a live video image exactly as you would see if you were looking at the display screen on the camera. While this is only supported by specific camera models, the feature is becoming more common. I have one camera that supports this feature using wi-fi and another that can use either wi-fi or Bluetooth.
Some cameras may allow you to connect to an existing wi-fi network. More typically, you activate independent wi-fi within the camera; then, on your mobile device, use network selection to connect to the camera. (When connecting to your camera’s wi-fi, your mobile device will likely warn you that no Internet is available; this is normal.) After the connection is established, then launch the camera control application on your device.
As some cameras do not include this capability, you may be able to add this feature through a device such as the CamRanger Wireless Remote Control or the Case Air Wireless Tethering System.
(Left) Panasonic Lumix G3, and (right) Panasonic Lumix G85
Panasonic has long maintained two similar MFT camera lines, DMC-G series and DMC-GH series. In general, the G series has been intended as mid-level cameras while the GH series has been a bit more high-end, but the differences have not always been obvious. All of the G and GH series cameras are system cameras with interchangeable lenses and hot shoe for external flash.
While I do own and use DSLR cameras, I have used Panasonic Lumix cameras as smaller alternatives. My typical day kit (less gear than a multi-day kit) includes a camera body, two lenses, and minor accessories. My Lumix G series kit is half the size of my DSLR kit.
While camera features improve with each generation, the MFT image sensors in the Lumix cameras seems to not change very much. The resolution has remained 16 MP up until the new G9, which introduces 20MP in the same FT/MFT format. In low-light, the RAW image noise is less than excellent but isn’t bad. Comparing the G3 to the G85, I see a small improvement in the newer camera, but it is small. It effectively gives me one more stop; the G85 noise at ISO 3200 is comparable to the G3 at 1600.
Features
After considerable study, here are the notable feature changes (notable in my opinion) starting with the G3 and moving to the very latest G9 (which I believe will ship later this month).
The G5 camera layout and handling is essentially the same as the G3
9 fps vs 6 fps
“Live MOS” image sensor has technical speed improvements, but same resolution.
Video recording supports MP4
Higher resolution in both the LCD display and the EVF
Eye-sensor below the EVF
Larger handgrip
The G7 layout and handling is significantly updated (compared to the G5)
4K video recording
OLED touch screen
4K photo mode
Wi-fi
The G85 camera layout and handling is essentially the same as the G7. Here are the important feature enhancements in the G85.
In-body image stabilization (sensor-shift type)
9 fps vs 6 fps
49 focus pts vs 27
Higher resolution in both the LCD display and the viewfinder display
The G9 camera layout and handling is new and includes an monochrome LCD info screen on top of the camera. This is a breakout camera that exceeds the G series moniker.
20mp MFT sensor
20 fps
225 autofocus points
Much larger viewfinder (EFV)
UHD/4K video up to 60 fps
6K photo mode
80MP image achieved by shifting the sensor 1/2 pixel and then combining the two images together.
Optional battery grip (for better handling in vertical orientation)
USB 3.0
Both Wi-fi and Bluetooth
More than 5 ounces heavier than the G85; a bit smaller and lighter than GH5
Many digital photography cameras have included the ability to record high-definition video, beginning with the Nikon D90 in 2008. The Canon 5D mk II (2009) was the first DSLR to be widely employed in film and television. Because video recording is usually accompanied by audio recording, these cameras necessarily include a microphone. But depending upon your own need for high-quality audio, the in-camera microphone can be a poor choice for professional quality.
(For a larger view, click on the photo here.)
Film and television production typically record audio on dedicated audio recording equipment, rather than relying upon the video camera to record audio. The separate video and audio recordings are brought together in post-processing. However, in-camera audio recording is practical for one-person or two-person teams recording video at events or for ENG (electronic news gathering).
Broadly speaking, you have two choices: a “video mic” or a general-purpose microphone with a pre-amp. “Video microphones” include some small amount of amplification such that they connect directly to your camera, for example a DSLR, with no additional equipment required. This is a simple compact solution. Video mics are available from Rode, Sennheiser, and Sure.
Alternatively, if you employ an audio pre-amp, then you can use any microphones you want and can use different microphones in different situations. However, this adds another piece of equipment, making the total solution more bulky.
The photo here shows a general-purpose shotgun microphone, connected to a mixer/pre-amp, connected to a DSLR camera (Rode NTG2, Azden FMX-DSLR, Canon 7D mk II). The shotgun is mounted in a shock-absorbing mount that isolates the microphone from any camera noises, including operation of controls, auto-focus motor, or accidental knocking around.
Comparing this setup to the built-in camera microphone, there are four big differences. The external is directional, rejecting off-axis sounds, whereas the camera built-in mic is unidirectional, picking up sounds even from behind the camera operator. The external mic is cleaner, producing less unwanted background noise. And the external mic generally does not record camera noises, because it is mechanically isolated away from the camera. Lastly, as you can see in the photo, this is far more bulk than just the camera alone.
Power for the NTG-2 can be provided either by the FMX preamp or by an optional AA battery within the NTG-2. I have tested both setups and find no difference in audio quality. Either way is far better than the camera’s built-in microphone, particularly in situations where the audio source is quiet and requires significant gain.
You may be able to connect an external microphone directly into your camera without use of a pre-amp. Not all microphones require a pre-amp, but it is typically required for condenser microphones. Although I had partial success with this technique on a different camera, the combination of NTG-2 with Canon 7D mk II requires a pre-amp. In this specific case, I configure the camera internal gain setting to 25% and then use the adjustment knobs on the FMX. Alternatively, you can enable camera automatic gain; in this case, be sure to inform the pre-amp using the switch for this purpose.
Here is a short list of some popular audio pre-amps: Azden FMX-DSLR, Beachtek DXA, JuicedLink RM222, JuicedLink RA333, Sound Devices MixPre D.
Let’s clear the air. Is the DSLR dead? And what exactly is a DSLR anyway?
Ten years ago, most people assumed that DSLR meant “really good camera”. (Some folks still believe this.) Over the past three years, numerous commentators have pronounced that mirrorless cameras have killed the DSLR. Both these sentiments are a mix of truth and falsehood.
First of all, DSLR means Digital + SLR. It is the digital successor to SLR film cameras. If we all agree that we’re talking about digital cameras, then the “D” is superfluous.
SLR (DSLR) = single lens + reflex mirror.
These cameras have two distinguishing characteristics. “SL” means single lens. “R” means reflex mirror. An SLR allows the photographer to optically see through the exact same lens that the camera uses to capture images; it does this using a mirror to redirect the light. In general, the mirror must be moved out of the light path when capturing an image; that’s why it is called reflex. (There are some exceptions; E.g. Canon EOS RT, circa.1990.)
System camera = camera with interchangeable components.
The most common system feature is choice of interchangeable lenses. Second most common system feature is a “hot shoe” for external strobes and other accessories. While interchangeable lenses implies “system”, the reverse is not entirely true; some camera systems do not include interchangeable lenses. Some camera systems offer lens accessories to make the built-in lens more telephoto or more wide-angle; for example: Olympus C5060 (2003), Fuji X100 (2015).
Compact system camera.
A system camera that is smaller than a typical DSLR. As mirrorless cameras are commonly half the size of a typical DSLR, mirrorless + system camera is often referred to as a Compact System Camera.
Mirrorless camera.
Mirrorless cameras eliminate the mirror found in SLR designs. There are two practical implications: the camera is smaller than comparable SLR and it lacks an optical viewfinder.
The term mirrorless camera generally implies a digital camera; however, I must point out that many older film-based cameras do not have a reflex mirror. View camera, twin lens, and rangefinder are all examples of mirrorless camera designs.
Eye-level viewfinder.
To see through the camera, you place the camera near your eye. There are three types of eye-level viewfinder. (1) Optical viewfinder, typical of a DSLR / SLR; (2) rangefinder (or possibly a twin-lens camera) which employs a second lens, separate from the lens used by the camera to capture the image; (3) electronic viewfinder which displays the image using a tiny digital display within the viewfinder. The first two are “optical” and require no electrical power, while an electronic viewfinder relies upon electronics.
Alternatively, a large display panel can substitute for an eye-level viewfinder. For example, a camera phone does not include an eye-level finder. But if you’ve ever struggled to use such a camera in bright sunlight, you may appreciate that an eye-level viewfinder can have advantages. Additionally, optical viewfinders do not eat your battery as digital display panels do.
Electronic viewfinder implies mirrorless. Typically, the combination of EV+IL implies a mirrorless camera system, which in turn implies compact system camera. However, as mentioned previously, a system camera may not have interchangable lenses. The term EVIL is more specific.
TTL = Through The Lens
This refers to an electronic exposure meter built in to the camera. A TTL meter measures the light coming through the lens used to capture the image. TTL is common for many different types of cameras, including SLR and mirrorless.
Let me give you one specific example where TTL is important. If you place a dark polarizing filter on the lens, the light entering the lens is diminished. TTL metering is immediately and precisely aware of this. If the meter is not measuring the light through the lens, then you have to manually adjust the camera controls to compensate.
Is the SLR “dead” ?
No, not yet.
As we said earlier, some people have equated SLR with “really good camera”. In that respect, the venerable SLR no longer stands alone.
Recognizing the technical meaning of the SLR acronym, mirrorless designs eliminate mechanical moving parts inside the camera. That is a compelling feature. And mirrorless designs tend to be much smaller, which is also compelling in many circumstances. However, the concept of an optical viewfinder + single lens … is still amazing, stunning, cool, and practical.
Honestly, I choose and use both SLR camera systems and mirrorless camera systems. They each have strengths and weaknesses. Did you know that “compact” isn’t always a good thing? But that is a subject for another day.
