Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What's a mirrorless camera? Well, I mean, it's obvious what it is, but why is it good to not have mirrors inside cameras?

They just not needed anymore because of the technology change from film to digital image. On the film based SLR (single lens reflex) the shutter had to remain closed except to expose the film for the picture...so you were not able to see through the lens to compose the picture without it. The mirror reflected to image up to a prism in the eyepiece. When you pressed the button, the mirror flipped up out of the way of the shutter and the shutter then open, closed and the mirror flipped down. Now with the digital, the senior is always on. The digital image is fedd to a small monitor in the eyepiece for you to see through the lens and compose the image. When you press the button, the camera just stores the information on the sensor at the moment you pressed the button.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mazz0
Well, that was short-lived enthusiasm. I have an X-E3 that I was hoping to use as a webcam last month. Doesn’t seem like it should be a differentiating product feature; my reason to use the camera was primarily to be able to get a better lighting angle than the built-in camera allows in my home office for a presentation. Guess I can save some money on the glass...

I do love the camera though, just a shame to not be able to use it for this.
 
When using any of these cameras for astrophotography the heating of the imaging chips becomes a problem by causing a lot of noise in the image if they are left on for any significant amount of time. I wonder if running them continuously as a video camera would cause any problems?
 
They do. NDI HX Camera app does it.

All third party solutions currently available are terrible. Just read reviews on all. Main issue being lag and none supporting FaceTime.

I had hopes Apple would make this their COVID related feature release but all we got was the stupid 20 second hand washing reminder. They missed a huge chance to hit a home run by releasing a simple driver.

That would have also taken some heat off them for having terrible webcams on MacBooks.
 
Thanks for the answer.
Of course you can also film with those cameras. And you can do that as long as the battery capacity or memory card allows it.
But a webcam is by definition something that can stream unlimited.
Are you sure the CMOS of the cameras mentioned is generic designed for such application?
In the datasheets I do not find any relevant information...
I can stream from my Nikon D780 to the Mac just fine for unlimited amounts of time using an HDMI capture card and an AC adapter. This setup should work for any DSLR / mirrorless camera with an HDMI output.
 
Can’t wait to use a medium-format sensor for my office’s Zoom meeting.

(jk, I wish I had a medium-format camera, but I do have an X-T3 so it will come in handy nonetheless)
 
I would suggest you’re not using the iPhone camera correctly or your lighting isn’t very good if you think it’s not up to par for meeting use. Most of not all iPhones now can do 4K video.
I never meant to imply that the iPhone front or back camera was inadequate for conference purposes, it’s perfectly serviceable as long as you have light and a place to put it.
I was pointing out how the 720P WebCams Apple sticks in Macs are pretty abysmal in comparison to most other modern devices.
Also while the iPhone isn’t bad it’s absolutely blown away by this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Rod and stevet
Basically it can be summarized as, in the past a mirror was necessary so that you could look through the viewfinder and see through the lens, roughly a decade ago technology progressed to the degree that such an analog approach has slowly (particularly in the last few years) become unnecessary (as you can now just send a digital feed to the viewfinder in realtime with almost no downsides) for all but a few applications (although some people PREFER an optical viewfinder instead of an electronic one)

Mirrors have never been "necessary" in cameras, as they have been made for more than a century without them (e.g., rangefinders, folding cameras, etc.), even for viewing directly through the lens (e.g., large format cameras, Hasselblad Flexbody, etc.). In fact, cameras without mirrors will have pre-dated SLRs that have the moving mirrors you mention.

Although not having a mirror is nothing new, I guess the term "mirrorless camera" nowadays refers specifically to digital cameras that have electronic displays in place of traditional optical viewfinders or reflex viewing (rather than simply lacking a mirror). In some ways, this is a significant development (e.g., as affords easier use than for some of the cameras without mirrors I've mentioned above), but it's not really the lack of mirror that is the innovation. For this reason, to me, the name mirrorless is almost misleading, but I don't see the name changing at this point.

What's a mirrorless camera? Well, I mean, it's obvious what it is, but why is it good to not have mirrors inside cameras?

I don't think it's necessarily good or bad, just different. It offers both advantages and disadvantages that could better suit certain circumstances. Traditionally, cameras without mirrors were often quieter, smaller, and more discrete (i.e., because no big, clunky mirror needed to rise), but had the disadvantage of non-reflex viewing. One of the advantages of today's digital mirrorless cameras though is that they can also offer reflex or through-the-lens viewing that their previous film variants could not, while trimming down on the size of their SLR cousins.
 
What's a mirrorless camera? Well, I mean, it's obvious what it is, but why is it good to not have mirrors inside cameras?
Primary benefits: mirrors exist in SLRs to allow the photographer to see what the lens sees: wide angle, normal focal length, telephoto, etc. Combined with a pentaprism, the optical viewfinder displays the image right side up and not backwards, the same as how your brain interprets what happens in your eyes.

It also allowed for things like helping the photographer manually focus (typically using a split prism microcollar focusing screen) and depth-of-field preview.

Primary cons: first of all, mirrors are slow. There's a delay after pressing the shutter button because the mirror has to get out of way; it flips up before the focal plane shutter curtain opens.

They're also mechanical and can be easily damaged since they are quite fragile (lightweight mirrors respond faster than thicker ones) and dangerously close to where a photographer's fingers are when he/she is changing a lens.

They also cause vibration. High-end film SLRs had mirror lockup levels to reduce the vibration caused by the mirror flipping up.

The mirror also causes major compromises in lens design. Ideally the rear lens element is as close to the focal plane as possible. The mirror in an SLR gets in the way so the rear lens element has to be in front of the mirror. This forces optical lens designs to put the focal plane far behind the lens. This is referred to as retrofocus. In order to do that, the lenses need to be bigger which means heavier and more expensive and often have more elements which additionally means more distortion, more lens flare (non-image forming light rays) and less light reaching the recording medium (each uncoated glass-air surface reduces light transmission about 5-10%).

To reduce image distortion sometimes lens manufacturers would introduce aspherical elements in their lens designs. Aspherical lens elements are more difficult to manufacture and thus add to the cost.

Without the reflex mirror, the lens designer can create more optimal lens designs with rear lens elements very, very close to the focal plane. This also means relatively smaller lenses often with fewer elements. If you look at a 50mm f1.4 lens for a 35mm rangefinder camera like a Leica versus a 50mm f1.4 lens for a Canon EOS 35mm SLR, the Canon lens is huge.

Many of these ideal mirrorless optical lens designs were perfected about 120 years ago (late 19th century/early 20th century) in the era of view cameras -- before the SLR's invention.

Modern digital cameras have LED viewfinder screens with lots of detail, largely eliminating the necessity for an optical viewfinder and hence the reflex mirror.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest you’re not using the iPhone camera correctly or your lighting isn’t very good if you think it’s not up to par for meeting use. Most of not all iPhones now can do 4K video.
There is a lot more to image quality than the number of pixels. You hit on one of them, which is the poor light performance of any small-sensor device, including all iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Computational photography is making incredible gains (Night Mode on my iPhone 11 is impressive)....but even the best software can only do so much when only a small number of photons are being captured.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevet
I wish Apple can have Macs use iPhones as webcams.

Or use their camera modules as the webcams in their computers! The camera quality in my 27" iMac is pathetic and embarrassing! I have a good external webcam that I use, but...a $2500 computer should at the very least have a decent webcam.
[automerge]1594317047[/automerge]
Anyone know of software like this for Nikon cameras?
A few months ago I tried for days to figure out a way to get my Nikon to work as a webcam but couldn't quite figure it out. It's so overly complicated and requires many extra cables/dongles. It's much easier with a Canon, apparently 😒
 
I never meant to imply that the iPhone front or back camera was inadequate for conference purposes, it’s perfectly serviceable as long as you have light and a place to put it.
I was pointing out how the 720P WebCams Apple sticks in Macs are pretty abysmal in comparison to most other modern devices.
Also while the iPhone isn’t bad it’s absolutely blown away by this.

I agree with you about the macs, there’s no excuse for it at this point. Either put a decent one In or leave it out.
 
Seconded for Sony mirrorless support. Then I could use my a7R III stopped down to like f/1.8 to blur out the background so the giant lego pile my kids have been playing with since pandemic won't be readily visible at the back of my studio. Perhaps someone could write a custom application to connect to it? Not sure what's possible. I know you can do a lot with modded firmware but I'm not going down that route.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aaarrrgggh
I would suggest you’re not using the iPhone camera correctly or your lighting isn’t very good if you think it’s not up to par for meeting use. Most of not all iPhones now can do 4K video.
It’s not 4K that I’m looking for; I want the shallow depth of field that comes with control of the f stop and a large aperture - The effect that iPhones mimmick with software to create portrait mode.
if you’re happy with Teams’/Zoom’s background effects, this isn’t for you. I want the rich video I know my Fujifilm provides.
 
I wish Apple can have Macs use iPhones as webcams.

 
  • Like
Reactions: ian87w
I just tried this yesterday. Pretty neat! Thanks.
 
I'm feeling the same way. Honestly, I'm not sure how they are justifying this move.

I saw that they weren't mentioned in the release but figured the journalists were just saving space. I am really disappointed by this.

Actually I did somewhere read something about this. Not sure if it was Reddit or the Fujirumors forum. The reason why the X-T30 is not supported is due to warmth. Using the sensor for webcam purposes appears to generate a lot of warmth. The X-T3 appearantly can handle that, the X-T30 will just overheat. If it's a good idea for an expensive camera like the X-T3 to allow it to generate that heat for a longer period is another discussion.

Anyway, it didn't stop me from buying a X-T30 just yesterday to replace my X-T10.

BTW, Camlink4K is said to allow the X-T30 to be used as a webcam, without overheating. Source: DPreview.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.