Talk:Mirrorless camera

Mirrorless Leicas?
Leica rangefinder cameras are mirrorless in the sense that they don't have a mirror in front of the sensor (or film). They do have an optical viewfinder. Since MILC was defined to make a distinction between reflex (e.g. SLRs or TLRs) and non-reflex system cameras, a Leica M or the Epson RD-1 camera is a MILC. One should think of MILC as a super category with EVF and Rangefinder categories. EVF can then be broken down into what you'd call "compact" and "(D)SLR-like" subcategories. Where would Fujifilm's X100 fit? Well, maybe you'll need a third "Hybrid" category. Guy Paris (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Leica M8 and M9 were listed as mirrorless; it's my understanding that the optical overlay of a traditional rangefinder is indeed a pentaprism and thus not a mirrorless camera. As far as the EVIL acronym goes, it's also an optical viewfinder, thus it's not an EVIL in any case. That said, I don't know enough about the internals of the M8 and M9 to know if they are now using some other technology for the rangefinding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deirdresm (talk • contribs) 00:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article in it's current state was updated to reflect the above. Digital rangefinders (M8, M9, and R-D1) do not have a pentaprism, but they are optical viewfinders. The purpose of a pentaprism is to upright the image when viewed through the optical viewfinder because the regular image is upside down coming off the lens. As for AF differences: in an SLR, the mirror is what splits the light to go into the viewfinder with some of that light is passed through and mirrored down to the bottom of the camera if the SLR has auto-focus. A rangefinder has no AF, but does phase detect focusing by sampling with two separate viewfinders. An SLR achieves a similar trick by sampling the image coming from two ends of the lens. A prism in the AF system is used to achieve this trick (but it isn't the pentaprism). This is where your confusion comes from. (BTW, the X100 fits under rangefinder but not in a MILC because the lens is not interchangeable. When an SLR is not interchangeable it is called a ZLR which is a subset of "bridge" cameras. The X100 is a bridge rangefinder design so therefore not relevant to this article) - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: asked over on the l-camera-forum. It sounds like the M8 and M9 use essentially the same mechanism as predessors from at least the M3 on. So it seems either a) rangefinders should be excluded from this page (which frankly makes more sense); or b) all rangefinders should be included, which would cloud the discussion of the modern trend toward mirrorless cameras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deirdresm (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is a class of cameras which are digital, have interchangeable lens and are not SLR, i.e. don't have TTL optical viewfinder. Digital rangefinder cameras fit this definition. We cannot restrict article to only "EVIL" cameras (many don't have an electronic viewfinder) or to completely mirrorless cameras (you can find mirror not only in rangefinder, but in some electronic viewfinder designs). "Mirrorless" in the article title means just "non-SLR". --M5 (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Epson R-D1 was released in 2004. It should be included if the Leica M8 belongs here, since both are digital rangefinder cameras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgmj (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is already included. --M5 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I didn't see it in the table. I was thinking about the history section though, where the Leica M8 is mentioned and maybe should be replaced with the Epson R-D1 since it was released two years before the Leica M8? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.245.230.14 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the things that classes a Mirrorless camera in the sense that most photographers mean is not just the lack of a physical mirror, but also the mode of operation. That is, the camera takes a live image from the camera's imaging sensor and displays it on an EVF or on a screen, or at least has the ability to do so. Though this may not be explicitly stated in the article, this is the way most people in the photography field would define a "mirrorless". The Leica M8, M9, and Epson RD-1 do not use this method of image composition and focusing. They are mechanical M-mount rangefinders, just like the Leica film M's going back to the M3, and the current Bessa and Zeiss cameras. Digital rangefinders are rangefinders, not mirrorless cameras in this regard. Put more simply, if you take a layperson and hand them an Olympus or Sony MILC, then a Leica M8 or M9, the Leica will be operated in a completely different way, as you compose with framelines, not on the LCD or an EVF, and your image through the viewfinder is not representative of the actual final image as it is on a MILC. However, the newest leica M-series rangefinder, refered to simply as the "M" with the internal designation "240", Not only has a mechanical/optical rangefinder mechanism like the older Leicas, but also has the ability to display a live view from the image sensor to the LCD screen or a separate detatchable eye-level electronic viewfinder. I would say that even though it has a rangefinder, its ability to display a live view from the sensor means that it is, in fact, a mirrorless camera in every sense of the word. If this is truly about the presence of a mirror, rather than the method of operation, A 4x5 view camera would also be "mirrorless", and it is clearly not. I think attention has to be paid here to the method of focus confirmation and composition of the image by the user, not merely the presence or nonpresence of a mirror in front of the sensor. Unixrevolution (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed with Unixrevolution. In no way I can see Leica being mirrorless CSC. Leica never qualified itself do this category either, nor most of the companies do. I don't know why suddenly an article about mirrorless on Wikipedia BEGINS with the photograph of Leica that hardly can be called a MILC in a first place. SkywalkerPL (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its pretty asinine to define "mirrorless" as "anything with a display", as Unixrevolution has above. The article requires a full history of mirrorless film cameras with interchangeable lenses since the 1930s. --93.223.194.254 (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Rangefinders should be removed. MILC, though a terrible term which should be abolished in favor of SLM or nearly anything else ("Honey, be sure to grab the MILC before we leave for the airport!" has never been and will never be uttered), is a generic term to describe a new camera category that didn't exist prior to the G1. Rangefinders already had their generic term, "rangefinder." No one who bought a rangefinder prior to the release of the G1 thought "I'm buying a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera!" Rather, they thought they were buying a rangefinder, intent on the rangefinder experience, regardless of whether DRangefinder or FRangefinder. Including the RD-1 and M8/9/10, etc., is retconning. Mlebold (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Expert attention
I've cleaned up this article a bit from its original submission, but if there are any experts on video camera technology out there that find this, it could definitely use some attention from someone more knowledgeable regarding the topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  19:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Ginsengbomb – thanks for your yeoman’s work!
 * I’ve significantly re-written and expanded (and re-named) the article; it could use work, but it’s now quite serviceable.
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Nils von Barth / Nbarth - I just discovered you integrated / moved the 'evil camera' page, and indeed changed and added a lot to this subject. I consider it definitely as an improvement, so, thanks a lot! Keep up the good work. I might have some additional information especially concerning the speed of contrast detection autofocus versus phase detection autofocus. But I'll have to look that up, maybe, maybe, next week. I'll put it in the discussion first --Yvolution (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sensor size
I think talking of entry-level DSLR sensors is confusing. As far as I know, APS-C sensors are for example used in all Canon DSLRs up to the 7D, which clearly is not an entry-level DSLR (nor is the 40d or 50d). 82.212.0.72 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger

 * MaGioZal suggested a merger in revision 379063247 - IMHO it's a very bad idea. Right now the ILCs are not only micro 4/3s - they are also the NEX system and the NX, not saying about Leica M. No reason at all to merge it unless author have anything to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkywalkerPL (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am against the merge too. Makes no sence.--Kozuch (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"MILC" term more popular.
The term "MILC" (as opposed to EVIL) is becoming more popular in the forums these days. As it is also the title of this topic, should it not get a mention ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preroll (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The page seems to be called MILC now. I noticed that the term "MILC camera" crops up in places - that's redundant, isn't it? Should it be corrected, or would it be more confusing to just use 'MILC' in those places? Denny de la Haye (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sony SLT range?
How are Sony SLT cameras considered mirror-less cameras when they obviously have mirrors? They are subtype of DSLR cameras. Also, there's already an article for SLT cameras (Single-lens translucent camera). I suggested Sony SLT range should be removed from list of EVIL cameras. Satellite779 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sony SLT is EVIL, see below. --M5 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess 'PILC' for 'prismless' would be more accurate ? But that would just be adding to the mayhem eh? (Preroll (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC))

I agree with Satellite779 that Sony SLT cameras definetely are DSLR. Their mirror just does not move, that is the only difference from all other DSLRs. Therefore it can not be considered as mirrorless. About 'prismless', most of the DSLR do not have prism, instead it have pentamirror. RedAndr (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * DSLR cameras have TTL optical viewfinder with reflex mirror, and Sony SLT does not have TTL optical viewfinder. Sony SLT cameras are not "mirrorless" but they are EVIL, i.e. have Electronic Viewfinder and Interchangeable Lens.  --M5 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The title of the page is "MIRRORLESS interchangeable lens camera", so Sony SLTs should be removed, simply. A mention that SLTs fit EVIL terminology should be made, or a separate page on EVILs linking to MILCs and SLTs, saying EVIL = MILC + SLT should be added. Remember: DPreview has a poll on MILCs (http://www.dpreview.com/polls/), suggesting that MILCs should reasonably become the industry-standard term for all those cameras. It depends on us and the MILC page on Wikipedia whether such terms will spread and become standard, so I suggest to just remove all SLT occurrences on the page and take position, finally decide on which term to use, citing the others as synonyms simply, and ending the confusion! Darrask (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Terminology
On terminology – since the terminology is not yet stable, I propose keeping alternative terms in the “Terminology” section (not cluttering the lede). Once a stable term emerges, but not before, we can use that throughout (e.g., MILC, ILC), and move the page to the proper name (if different).
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

DEVIL
I removed DEVIL acronym from the lead - source given is not notable enough and I could not find any other usages of the acronym. Also, the word "Digital" is redundant when used with "Electronic Viewfinder". --M5 (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "EVIL redirects here." xD I love it. 79.219.26.115 (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Shutter and flash sync speed
Does a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera have a mechanical shutter (like today's normal DSLRs) or an electronic shutter (like today's compact cameras)? If it has an electronic shutter than one of its' benefits is an (almost) unlimited flash sync speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itamarhason (talk • contribs) 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, as of today, all MILCs have mechanical shutters. There are cameras (not necessarily MILCs) that use both a mechanical and an electronic shutter (to provide a higher flash sync speed). Interestingly, there is at least one DSLR (there may be others) that has only an electronic shutter (the Nikon D40; the D40x has a mechanical shutter). One might assume that therefore MILCs, like DSLRs, have a limited shutter life. (http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/why-digital-cameras-have-mechanical-shutters.html) --91.89.230.62 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This matches my understanding. Until the introduction of global shutters, an electronic shutter is inferior to the mechanical shutter, and can result in considerable rolling shutter effects.  It's really only useful when silence or frame rate are important.  I'd thus like to change the claim

Compared to DSLR cameras, mirrorless cameras are mechanically simpler and are often smaller, lighter, and quieter (since their electronic shutter is used)
 * Thoughts? Groogle (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

[citation needed]?
'''The purpose of micros is to provide high quality imaging in a smaller body than in DSLR cameras. [citation needed]''' While I can see why some might see this as some kind of unwanted original theory construction, it's an assertion that's backed by the whole article, it's common knowledge and it's actually such an obvious fact that I'm not sure if the [citation needed] tag is any more necessary there than for other claims in this article that are comparably "new" and "uncited" (like that the term MILC is "the most accurate one" or that these cameras "have generated significant excitement" or that they're "undermining the advantage that existing camera makers have in precision mechanical engineering" and many others). --91.89.230.62 (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What's funny is the Pentax Q belies this statement. It should be "The purpose of MILCs is to provide the versatility of use-specific lenses in a smaller body than dSLR cameras" (no citation needed because that's the ontology of the term MILCs) - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A55 and A33 wrongly placed
Article clearly says in first lines: "an emerging class of digital system cameras, intermediate between compact digital cameras and digital single-lens reflex cameras (DSLRs)" - SLTs are equal to DSLRs, these two are above entry-level and below advanced DSLR models. Also you write that these cameras have drawbacks like "Contrast detection autofocus, rather than phase detection autofocus system" and "Incompatibility with existing lenses" - while that's CLEARLY not the case with A55 and A33.

These two should be put in exact same place as eg. Leica M8 - mention them in "Classification" section - M8 also doesn't fit the MILC type, but from different reasons (IMO it's actually closer to MILC definition than A55 and A33 is). 83.26.135.65 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This article should be broken into separate articles
This article attempts to define a very fuzzy category, and is therefore confusing.

The subjects covered in here are mostly covered in other articles such as EVF, System Camera, Autofocus and Image sensor format. Based on the writing so far, it's hard to believe some of the editors are even aware of these other articles.

I would propose that the sections on Advantages/Disadvantages be substantially removed. Useful redundancy exists, but this is not it.

Michael Barkowski (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

System comparison lineup
I have not been able to figure out why the systems are sorted in this particular order. Is it market share, that puts Sony and Four Thirds on top? Wouldn't the "Relese date" not be a better default? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.38.113 (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Racklever (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo/quasi-APS-C?
Sony NEX was described as having a pseudo-APS-C sized sensor, while Samsung NX a quasi-APS-C sensor. I have taken the libery to remove those qualifiers, because, while the sensors are, indeed, smaller than Advanced Photo System Classic film frame, I think the term APS-C is, in general, used generously to describe all imaging surface roughly that size.--Polymeris (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Auto-focus minor cleanup?

 * 1) The paragraph ordering is a little confusing. It probably needs to be broken up to start with some general discussion of the pro/con of contrast AF vs. phase detect and then separate paragraphs which describes each model compensations/exceptions.
 * 2) Another factor contributing to the faster benchmarking of the Olympus and Nikon 1 vs. dSLR's is the smaller sensor (the DoF is larger so it doesn't have to iterate as long before a focus lock is achieved
 * 3) CDAF (even on newer models) is slower than AF lock in dark conditions (currently). The wording seems to imply that Contrast AF is superior as long as the subject is not moving
 * 4) In the section on the Nikon 1, if you are going to mention that CDAF is not prone to calibration errors in the very next sentence, it deserves mentioning that this systems PDAF is on-sensor therefore is not prone to calibration issues either. Calibration issues is a function of it being in-sensor vs. out of sensor. In general when talking about that, this should be a separate paragraph where the distinction is made between in sensor/film and out-of-sensor focus systems (CDAF is primarily in sensor, and PDAF is primarily out of sensor, but this is not always the case). Exceptions: Nikon 1, manual focusing without screens on a SLR, …
 * 5) There is no discussion of the Leica M series being (while not AUTO-focusing) a phase detect, out of sensor style. Probably should drop in a reference to the subpart on rangefinders there.

(I'd make some changes, but it's been years since I've edited en wp) :-) - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem, as with the whole article, is lack of references. We cannot say that X is faster/better than Y without a reference.--Racklever (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Too many mentions of specific systems
I feel this article is rather confusing and hard to read, as it has too many mentions of systems, sensor sizes and other technical details pertaining to one brand/model of camera or the other. I am not an expert in this topic and not very experienced with wiki guidelines either, but this paragraph --just an example, there are many other similar cases-- reads like if everyone wanted to make sure their prefered camera brand or model was mentioned:

"Not all MILCs have a large sensor: Pentax Q (announced in June 2011) has a 1/2.3" sensor (typical of compact cameras). In September 2011 a new sensor format was announced by Nikon for its first MILC: the CX format,[2] with a sensor area 2.6 times bigger than the 1/1.7" sensor equipping high-end compact cameras, and about half the size of a Four Thirds sensor.[3] The Sony NEX looks like a compact camera with a zoom lens, but has a larger sensor; its APS-C sensor is the same size as that of most (amateur) DSLRs.[4] The Samsung NX10 (APS-C) and Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 (Micro Four Thirds) have larger bodies and appearance similar to DSLRs[citation needed], but are significantly smaller than entry-level DSLRs."

Would a lot be lost if it was replaced by a one or two sentences that just said MILC sensor sizes ranged from comparable to compact camera to APS-C? The details are available in a table further down anyway!

C.f. the DSLR article: not every paragraph contains a comparison of available systems.--Polymeris (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, we already have a table that lists available systems. --Racklever (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing is that half of these sentences sound like an advertisement, not a fact (eg. Nikon 1 having AF faster than DSLRs - before my edit someone wrote it as an doubtful fact, which clearly isn't the case). We really need to have two things done here:
 * Clean-up from constant comparisons between systems
 * Clean-up from advertisement
 * as in the current form it leaves much to be desired. SkywalkerPL (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Benefits
The last sentence in the Benefits section is incomplete.

Dcell59 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Compact System Cameras
I am not a camera expert, but from what I know, the information in this article refers to what are most commonly known in the UK as Compact System Cameras, and I have never heard the term MILC. But the page for that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_System_cameras) is just a stub, while this one is full of information (maybe too full). Perhaps this is because this page was mostly written about 5 years ago. Kylotan (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look and it was originally created as a redirect to this article. I changed it back to its original as the content there doesn't add anything new to the content here. - Takeaway (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading use of 'crop factor'?
In section 4.1: Bridge cameras, I read "The small sensors on bridge cameras also boast an extremely high crop factor (typically above 5.0), thus allowing such cameras to achieve zoom ranges that are physically impossible on DSLRs and cameras utilizing larger sensors." Is it correct to say that a crop factor has an effect on zoom range? I understand DOF and the way the photographer composes the shot are affected, but it's not 'physically impossible' to crop the center of the image on a larger sensor. Perhaps 'apparent zoom range' is better? Am I missing something? 36.54.64.147 (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The correct language here is "Field of View". A 50mm lens on a APS-C still has the same magnification, but the FoV is cropped to 75mm (in the case of a 1.5x crop factor). This can have give the illusion of the magnification being increased, but it is merely an optical crop. Confusion is added to this by the fact that not all digital cameras have the same sensor size in megapixels, so for example, a camera with a 24MP is going to produce a larger (physical) image than a 6MP sensor. So you have to make the FoV comparisons based on equal (in MP) sensor sizes. Bobcooley (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Confusing "mirrorless" term
The article uses the "mirrorless" term a lot when referencing MILCs. This is very confusing, especially when describing the difference between a MILC (mirrorless, interchangeable lens) and a Compact (mirrorless, non-interchangeable lens). I suggest we try to use the term "mirrorless" as least as possible, and possibly add a sentence about this confusion. Lonaowna (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bridge Camera - remove
Mention of bridge cameras in the article about MILC cameras is superfluous and tangential. Bridge cameras are not interchangeable lens cameras and occupy their class of modern digital cameras. An article about bridge cameras already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardly79 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Benefits, Drawbacks, Comparisons
A section devoted to benefits and drawbacks early in the article is redundant to a section about comparisons. Can these be combined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardly79 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Major re-structure required
Hi everyone. I started doing some copy edits on the article, but I think it requires more than I can supply at this point. Some points to consider: Is there any good reason why [] isn't an improvement? I realize that there might be some good content worth saving in there, but someone should point out what that is. Scribolt (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Benefits and the Drawbacks section has 1 reference in it. I'm sure its accurate, but tbh unless someone feels like sourcing anything in here I'd suggest either deleting it, or including some brief points in a different section (with sources)
 * Mirrorless equipping cameras: The heading and the text doesn't make sense. Maybe it does if you know about cameras, but its not well written and requires a re-write at least.
 * Why are there 3 sections devoted to comparisons?
 * Actually, the more I look at it the weirder the whole thing looks.
 * In the lack of any replies, I'm going to delete the replicated sections. Scribolt (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this article needs a lot of work. Deleting questionable and subjective passages would be a good start. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this article divides cameras into types and names no longer generally recognized. The same is true for some other camera articles in the series. Extensive rewrite will be required to modernize the entire series of articles starting with an agreement about contemporary and prevailing naming of camera types. Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't offer to contribute on the content, its something I know nothing about, but if you want me to check the text after you've finished your editing, I'm more than happy to help. Scribolt (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523023512/http://www.dpreview.com/previews/RicohGXR/ to http://www.dpreview.com/previews/RicohGXR/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516224100/http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/olympus_e_system_mirrorless_in_two_years_probably_news_295133.html to http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/olympus_e_system_mirrorless_in_two_years_probably_news_295133.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930165551/http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/panasonic_primed_for_canon_and_nikon_fight_news_306149.html to http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/panasonic_primed_for_canon_and_nikon_fight_news_306149.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Confused crop factor info?
I removed this as it seems confused, what do you think? "The space reclaimed from not having a mirror-box reduces the size of the camera but it is added to each of the lenses, since a "normal" X mm lens need to have X mm, counted from the sensor (focal plane) to a specific point of the lenses. The misconception of the size of the lenses came because many mirrorless systems have a smaller sensor. But a 50 mm "normal" non-telephoto lenses will always have 50 mm." -Lopifalko (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

DSLT?
I reverted a couple of references to DSLT as being the most common abbreviation. I had never heard it, and there aren't many hits. It didn't occur to me until later to simply improve it, but it's done now. Is it time to add a discussion about the different abbreviations? EVIL seems the most descriptive to me, but it seems not to be very popular. Groogle (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Consensus is that although technically cameras with fixed lenses that don’t have mirrors are “mirrorless”, the term “mirrorless camera” is used almost exclusively to refer to those with interchangeable lenses and this is the common name for the topic of this article. In other words, the worst case is this topic is the primary topic for this term. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 05:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera → Mirrorless camera – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. None of the titles of the article's references use the full name. Rublov (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This would be a big change of scope and produce real ambiguity. All the point-and-shoot cameras without interchangeable lenses would then fall within the scope of the article (and there's already an article about those). Also, on today's market, it is obvious that a mirrorless camera is implicitly a digital camera rather than a film camera, but that was not true a generation ago. The cameras used by the general public 30+ years ago, such as the Instamatic, are mirrorless cameras, but those are not what this article is about. Wikipedia is not just about what is currently on the market. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then the current title is inadequate as well, because there are many examples of pre-SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses and no mirror, e.g. the Leica Schraubgewinde. I don't think there is any reasonable title which would precisely identify the intended scope, so we might as well use the WP:COMMONNAME, which, happily, is also more WP:CONCISE. Rublov (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although interpreting the meaning of the words individually might hypothetically give that impression, the MILC term is only used in this exact form (as far as I know) to refer to digital cameras. (Also you did not respond to my comment about confusion with point-and-shoot cameras without interchangeable lenses.) —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although interpreting the meaning of the words individually might hypothetically give that impression, the MILC term is only used in this exact form (as far as I know) to refer to digital cameras. - you can substitute "mirrorless camera" for "MILC" without changing the truth value of this proposition. Regarding point-and-shoot cameras, it seems commonly understood that this is a separate category from mirrorless cameras:, , . Rublov (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Blue whale does not refer to any whale which happens to be blue, but rather a specific species of whale known as Balaenoptera musculus. Likewise, there is no reason why Mirrorless camera must literally refer to all cameras that lack a mirror, as opposed to a specific type of such camera which is referred to as such in common usage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * After a little web searching, I am surprised to find that "mirrorless camera" does seem to usually refer to interchangeable-lens cameras (although the "interchangeable lens" clarification is typically also found somewhere in close proximity). —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the current title is more precise, while the proposed title is quite ambiguous. Yes, the long term is commonly shortened, but that's not enough reason to make the article title more ambiguous.  This source says Compact System Camera (CSC) tends to be the most popularly accepted term for cameras like this. MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera) or simply ILC, or just “Mirrorless” are also used, as well as “hybrid cameras”.  They don't list "mirrorless camera" as it doesn't really specify the category.  If we'd go that far, why not just Mirrorless?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Kind of like why we have an article at United States and not US or United States of America - just the right level of formality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠</b> 04:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This implies no change of scope, pocket cameras are for example never called mirrorless cameras although they are mirrorless. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. The current situation can and does lead to confusion. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edited lede to be more understandable
Hello! I and @Lynxano have written a new introductory section for the article. It now more clearly outlines the unique aspects and differences of mirrorless cameras, especially for people who may not be familiar with professional photography and the jargon surrounding it. With mirrorless cameras becoming more and more widely known, and Wikipedia a common resource for looking up information, it makes sense for the introduction to be more accessible.

I'm not a professional photographer and I don't know much about cameras, so I helped by making sure the text was understandable to someone like me. :)

The rest of the article could still use work on being more generally accessible, but we had to start somewhere! CauliflowerMoon (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * something i've noticed about photography wikipedia pages, is that they rely heavily on jargon and categorisation and technical minutiae, rather than explaining the topic in general. i've also noticed, through reading talk pages and being a photographer, that a lot of the categorisations are not under consensus and/or are not actually useful, and i think something should be done about that. photography articles on wikipedia, for the most part, are basically unreadable, and i've noticed that they often are misleading (especially if someone doesn't understand the jargon involved) or sometimes entirely misinformation, and i feel that lot of this comes from a desire to make categorisations and delineate between different things for the sake of it. in the case of mirrorless, there will inevitably be confusion and disagreement about what the word refers to, and i think that's something that should be celebrated and acknowledged, instead of trying to find an ultimate truth for what the term refers to and what it includes and excludes. as a photographer, i use mirrorless to refer to lots of non-interchangeable lens cameras, because they satisfy what i think of as mirrorless, and i think that explaining that that isn't how the term is usually used is a lot more valuable than trying to find jargon that specifically excludes my interpretation. i think that finding jargon specifically to exclude other types of cameras creates more confusion and misunderstanding and that it is a lot healthier to say what something is, and then address that there isn't consensus about what it refers to, or that there is, but that the term sucks and is inherently confusing, rather than trying to find an ultimate truth. cameras have more similar with each other than they have different, and i think implying that there are more different than they are is harmful. there really isnt all that much different between mirrorless cameras and dslrs, and especially between mirrorless and digital rangefinders. Lynxano (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)