People think all professional cameras are called "SLRs".
A rangefinder is a higher quality camera than an SLR ever was and a full frame mirrorless probably has better quality than a DSLR, in both cases because it's easier to design lenses for them. A medium format camera can be better than all of those.
A medium format camera can also be a DSLR. An a6700 or an A7 is not a rangefinder, it's a mirrorless camera. You're mixing up characteristics.
DSLR means: it's digital, it uses one lens, and the visor image comes from the same lens that goes to the film, but reflected on a mirror to your eye (probably through a pentaprism, but that can vary), so you can see the same image that will be captured in the sensor.
A rangefinder is a camera where you look... through a rangefinder. It's a visor independent of the film/sensor, like a classic Leica. That means that the image you see is not exactly the same that will reach the sensor/film, as it will go through a different optical system. There are digital rangefinders like the M series Leicas.
Mirrorless means, it doesn't have a mirror to send the image to the visor. The typical mirrorless cameras nowadays get the visor image directly from the sensor, you don't look through a rangefinder. A rangefinder is mirrorless, but not every mirrorless is a rangefinder. Most digital mirrorless cameras aren't rangefinders.
A rangefinder (or mirrorless) camera is not inherently better than a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras can have simpler optical designs that achieve more quality easier, but there are better and worse cameras in both sides.
I went the extra step to clear those terms for anybody that could read it, just in case anybody is interested.
You said:
- A rangefinder is a higher quality camera than an SLR ever was
- a full frame mirrorless probably has better quality than a DSLR
- A medium format camera can be better than all of those
I say you're mixing stuff because:
- rangefinder only means it has a rangefinder. There are Yashica Electro, Argus C3, and there are Leicas. Most rangefinders are medium/low quality
- well nowadays, maybe, but not necessarily. But we can generalize a bit in that case
- A medium format camera can be mirrorless, DSLR, rangefinder... so it can be in any of those groups, so we cannot compare it just like that
>A rangefinder is a higher quality camera than an SLR ever was
This does not mean anything at all. The comparison is total nonsense.
>and a full frame mirrorless probably has better quality than a DSLR
No. DSLR and Mirrorless camera differ how the viewfinder works. Generally Mirrorless cameras are newer, but ranking them for quality is totally nonsensical. This is independent of the size of the sensor.
>A medium format camera can be better than all of those.
You are comparing totally different things. A full frame Camera can be Mirrorless or a DSLR. There is no comparison to be made here. You are totally confused about technology and terminology.
A camera is a product with multiple components. Mirrorless camera designs can have smaller and higher quality lenses for the same price because they don't need to accommodate the SLR mirror behind the lens.
I don't think image quality is the end all be all of a camera, but is what amateurs think the purpose of an expensive camera is.
I think it's better to steelman rather than assert ignorance on the part of the person you're replying to.
It is true that people these days associate the DSLR form-factor with professional photography, despite the heavy use of rangefingers by those such as Robert Capa etc not that long ago. And it is also true that both rangefinders and mirrorless ILCs avoid the need for retrofocus designs which in theory should make for higher-quality lenses at the same weight, or similar quality and a lower weight.
As for "better" this is often a matter of preference and it's okay for people to have different preferences. For me personally, I wish there was more experimentation in ILC form factor, it seems most (with a few notable exceptions) ape the pentaprism hump even if they don't contain one.
I think it's easy to see what they mean, even if you don't agree with them. I think it puts too much emphasis on glass as there's so much more that goes into getting a shot. I do pick up my old film cameras every now and then for enjoyment, but if I have to get a shot, I'm always taking the newest thing I have. It's hard to beat multiple stops of stabilization in the lens and the body along with the black magic of modern sensors.
Not having a mirror is not the most important characteristic of the hardware for this project.
Being able to control it through an API is. What happens after you trigger the shutter is out of scope. Speaking of shutter buttons, a bunch of new cameras don’t have shutters but the button is still called a shutter button.
While I mostly agree its a matter of jargon, the original author never calls their camera a DSLR.
Also yes while yes many cameras do not have moving shutters, they still operate with an electronic shutter which just like a moving one does have various limitations.
I'd argue though to many a photographer, calling any ILC or sufficiently costly camera a DSLR is akin to a post calling an android phone a linux phone. To the layperson the nuance between ubuntu's kernel or a pixel's doesnt matter to them, however to the intended audiences it sure does.
To be pedantic for the people still reading this, curious enough to go further without falling down a Wikipedia rabbit hole.
The reflex mirror in a (D)SLR directs the image up through the viewfinder prism to the eyepiece. This mirror flips upwards just before the shutter opens. This mechanic action has a decent bit of inertia and can cause blurring in some extreme cases.
Mirrorless refers to digital cameras where the sensor operates the digital viewfinder, so like an SLR “you get what you see”. For rangefinders and TLRs, your view is offset from the picture lens, so if you’re really trying to nail a composition and not “fix it in post” SLRs and mirrorless offer an advantage, which is part of why they became so predominant.
No. When I see a6700 and DSLR used in the same sentence, I have to question whether that is a misunderstanding on the author's side, whether it's actually for Sony a6700 or some other camera, or if anything in the repo makes sense or if the author knows what they are doing. This erodes confidence if the author cannot even get the very basics right.
DLSR stands for Digital Single-Lens Reflex. An a6700 is indeed digital, has a single lens, and is undoubtedly a camera. All it’s missing is a reflex mechanism. So I’d say that in four out of five ways, it is indeed a DSLR camera.
No - it's "single-lens reflex", a single attribute without comma. That is, a mirror redirecting light from a single lens to different targets (viewfinder and film/sensor).
If "four out of five words" was good enough, then an analogue film camera is also a DSLR - it's only missing the "digital" part after all. Seahorse and racehorse is also just one word apart, so basically the same, right?
The digital camera was invented in 1968, the first auto-focusing SLR is from 1978.
Auto-exposure came a few years before auto focus, but not by much as it still required not only light metering but also multiple mechanical couplings to the lens.
Such cameras (like the famous Canon A-1) were never refered to as "digital cameras", and SLR was used to distinguish from rangefinders primarily.
Sometimes four out of five doesn't cut it. Thats like claiming my car is an electric car because "they both have batteries and motors". Or like saying C is a functional programming language because its a programming language that "has functions".
The defining characteristic of SLR and DSLR cameras is the reflex mechanism, which is a giant mechanism inside the camera that sits in front of the film or sensor. The mechanism uses a mirror to allow the viewfinder to work. And the whole thing needs to physically flip out of the way when you press the shutter button to expose the film. But as a result, SLR / DSLR cameras are usually way bigger physically to make room for the mirror and the reflex mechanism.
Mirrorless cameras like the A6700 don't have this reflex mechanism, so they're not DSLR cameras. They're called mirrorless cameras. Same as the cameras in our phones.
DSLR describes the basic operation mechanism of the camera. The A6700 does not have that mechanism, it has no optical viewfinder.
DSLR is an obsolete technology, just like your phone modern cameras can use their digital sensors to give a preview of the actual image on the sensor. Saying that some camera is a DSLR means something, namely that it uses an optical mechanism to project the light through the lense into a viewfinder. It is a technical term with a clear meaning, calling the A6700 a DSLR is wrong.
The A6700 is not, in any way, a DSLR camera.