When are we going to stop using the mirrorless mouthful when describing the now-mainstream camera. The vast majority of photographs these days are taken by a camera or phone without a mirror. The old method of distinguishing between cameras with and without a mirror is now superfluous. When did you last take out your mirrorless camera to take pictures of a horseless carriage?
It’s one of my hobbies, taking pictures of vehicles. But I normally use a camera to take pictures of cars. Mirrorless doesn’t even come into my head.
Isn’t it time we went back to the simple moniker of “camera” for a device that takes photographs? Why talk about the most popular modern camera by what it doesn’t have, rather than what it has?
Ten years ago, when most photographers were using single-lens reflex cameras, perhaps it made sense to differentiate the new way of seeing through the lens as “mirrorless.” But that was ten years ago; it makes absolutely no sense now.
While DSLRs still account for nearly 50 per cent of shipments, the proportion continues to shrink. And if you regard smartphones as cameras—which they are undoubtedly are, and good ones at that—then the “mirrorless” tag is wholly redundant.
Even the DSLR bears an over-complex name which was perhaps necessary twenty years ago. Adding “digital” to SLR made sense when film SLRs were still in production. As far as I’m aware, though (and I’m sure you’ll tell me if I’m wrong), film reflex cameras are now living in Dodoland. It would be more logical these days to differentiate cameras with mirrors from cameras without mirrors. What’s wrong with the term reflex camera?
The future is not with reflex cameras. While there are advantages in an optical view via a mirror, the benefits of a mirrorless design (see, I’ve just done it again…) are plain to all. The latest electronic viewfinders are so good that the advantage of the DSLR is shrinking rapidly.
I am thinking to ban the use of “mirrorless” from the columns of Macfilos. What do you think? Please discuss… all contributions welcome.