Digital Rear View Mirrors/Cameras

[DanD]

Has any ES owner opted for this option?

Any feedback you may be willing to share?

It is not a cheap extra, but is it worth the money?

[NemesisUK]

It's going to be standard on the new NX Takumi 

I wonder what the advantages it has over the plain auto-dimming mirror?

[Herbie]

44 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

It's going to be standard on the new NX Takumi 

I wonder what the advantages it has over the plain auto-dimming mirror?

I can't really see any unless it records what it sees.

I think expensive cameras instead of mirrors is just a case of technology for the sake of it and they're not really needed.

[subria88]

https://everydaytoyota.ca/digital-rearview-mirror-what-does-it-do-for-you/

The top end RAV4s have them - mixed reviews as can be seen
https://www.rav4world.com/threads/digital-rearview-mirror-is-useless.298619/

They're listing it as being able to see out the rear with the boot stacked high, a wider field of view if required, and less glare.

You still get the standard mirror I think, but you can use the digital if required. A nice to have but not really required. Sadly it's not something you can retrofit later.

[Rabbers]

I found the digital wing-mirrors fitted to the demo car very impressive when I test-drove an ES.  The angle they cover is extremely wide compared to normal mirrors, making blind-spot monitoring unnecessary.  I didn’t go on the motorway but would think the improvement in safety to be particularly valuable on fast multi-lane roads.  The mirrors also incorporate side-distance measuring lines, making parking easier.  I thought the clarity and depth of the images especially good (in fact better than that provided by my RC’s rear-view camera).  It wasn’t  raining when I was driving, so I don’t know if the claimed protection from wetness attributable to the deeply recessed lenses is as effective as claimed.  Nor did I drive at night, so I wasn’t able to judge if dazzle and glare are an issue, but I would be surprised if the system does not automatically adjust.  Aesthetically the narrowness of the mirrors suits the ES’ lines very well, making the profile look even sleeker.  The €1800 price-tag is a bit steep but, as optionals go, I would find it desirable were I in the market for an ES.  My only concern, apart from the possible attraction to vandals of mirrors that look (and are)  expensive, would be the nagging thought, notwithstanding Lexus’ proven reputation for reliability, that something could go wrong with the system or the folding mechanism, in which case one would be in deep trouble pending repairs. 

[Andy B]

20 hours ago, NemesisUK said:

It's going to be standard on the new NX Takumi 

I wonder what the advantages it has over the plain auto-dimming mirror?

I was interested in the Digital Rear View mirror when compiling a preliminary wish list for my new NX and came across this video which explains what it can do:-

 

[Mincey]

Nice! I would have loved one of those on a trip some time ago where for two hours I could see nothing behind me but the gurning face of my eldest stepchild.

[Andy B]

17 minutes ago, Mincey said:

Nice! I would have loved one of those on a trip some time ago where for two hours I could see nothing behind me but the gurning face of my eldest stepchild.

😀

For me it's a "nice to have" rather than a "must have". If my chosen equipment "pack" for the new NX (Premium Plus) included it then all and well good but I personally wouldn't be paying extra for it.

[DanD]

Thank you.

I was referring to side mirrors rather than the rear view mirror, apologies if my post was not clear.

There are video reviews available on YouTube, but was looking for real-life experiences - Thanks @Rabbers

 

[Herbie]

27 minutes ago, DanD said:

I was referring to side mirrors rather than the rear view mirror,

Doh  

Again, probably technology just for the sake of it.

The outside cameras do make the car look slicker but that's more than offset by the ridiculous placement of the two monitors inside that just look like a bolted-on afterthought.

And then, of course, there's the ever-present vandals. They seem to take great delight in destroying door mirrors and I think cameras would be an even better target for their mindless antics. Even replacing mirrors is expensive but replacing cameras will just be astronomical.

[Rabbers]

23 minutes ago, Herbie said:

…the two monitors inside that just look like a bolted-on afterthought. …

True, but only up to a point.  They are conveniently placed for easy visibility, better than traditional wing-mirrors since they are closer to the driver’s line of vision, and I can’t really see where else they could go.

[PDM]

5 hours ago, Herbie said:

Doh  

Again, probably technology just for the sake of it.

The outside cameras do make the car look slicker but that's more than offset by the ridiculous placement of the two monitors inside that just look like a bolted-on afterthought.

And then, of course, there's the ever-present vandals. They seem to take great delight in destroying door mirrors and I think cameras would be an even better target for their mindless antics. Even replacing mirrors is expensive but replacing cameras will just be astronomical.

I do think that Lexus could have done a better job with the placement of the screens.  If you look at what Audi is doing with integration of digital wing mirrors, they are much more integrated into the cabin than the ones on the ES.

There is probably another advantage for digital mirrors that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet.  I assume (I do not know for certain) that they may be better in the rain than conventional mirrors and depending on the quality/technology in the sensor/lens placement, and are perhaps better in the dark?  There is scope for adding some image processing in the chain so I can see they images could be better than a simple mirrors in some conditions.  And I also guess the field of view can be big enough to eliminate a blind spot.

But I have never tried them, so this is all speculation based on what I think should be possible with this type of solution.

Paul

[Rabbers]

1 hour ago, PDM said:

I do think that Lexus could have done a better job with the placement of the screens.  If you look at what Audi is doing with integration of digital wing mirrors, they are much more integrated into the cabin than the ones on the ES …

I’ve only seen the Audi screens in pictures since following this thread, and they certainly look nicely integrated into the design of the dashboard.  But, as far as I can tell, they require the driver to look down, which is a safety issue.  It could therefore be argued that Lexus, by comparison, has sacrificed aesthetic appearance in the interests of practicality.
 

[beyond the blue]

Wow! Wouldn't like the repair bill for those. The kids in my town kick them off for fun.

[dutchie01]

I had a ES300h for the day with the e-mirrors and i just dont get the idea. You can see it on new trucks and that makes sense as those mirrors are huge so placing a camera will improve efficiency big time. But in a car?

It felt unnatural and i constantly looked outside where of course there is no mirror. The small screens are just terrible and the execution is doubtful to say the least. Cheap hard plastics and not moveable. It does not work, nobody asked for it and does not solve a problem as there is no problem with normal mirrors. I always liked the big jap style mirrors on my IS250 so please lexus stop that non sense. Its a marketing gimmick nothing else. Better to improve material choice and up the quality in the cabin for the ES300H?  

[Rabbers]

4 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

… Its a marketing gimmick nothing else…

Maybe or maybe not, but one thing is sure, namely that we are unlikely to see them except in demo ESs since nobody appears to be buying them.

[dutchie01]

1 minute ago, Rabbers said:

Maybe or maybe not, but one thing is sure, namely that we are unlikely to see them except in demo ESs since nobody appears to be buying them.

Exactly, the salesman told me before even getting into the car that it would be possible to order the car with normal mirrors...

Next step maybe to replace the windscreen by an lcd plasma unit?

I wish Lexus would stay close to its core and not drift away left and right..

[Herbie]

On 9/16/2021 at 6:59 PM, Rabbers said:

they require the driver to look down, which is a safety issue.  It could therefore be argued that Lexus, by comparison, has sacrificed aesthetic appearance in the interests of practicality.

There are a myriad of switches, buttons and other stuff that require the driver to look down so I'm not sure that argument holds water. They could have made it look much better but, for whatever reason, chose not to.

[Rabbers]

1 hour ago, Herbie said:

There are a myriad of switches, buttons and other stuff that require the driver to look down …

Indeed there are, but surely none that you need to look or glance at as frequently as you do the wing-mirrors or, in this case, the digital equivalents. Therefore, to have the latter at the same height as traditional ones is appropriate.

[Rabbers]

When posting on the subject of digital mirrors (see above, Sept 15), I forgot to mention that the system includes a BSM function similar to that used for traditional mirrors, which should presumably mean that the cameras have not fully eliminated blind spots.  The BSM can be switched off but, as has been my own practice with normal mirrors since I first had the function in a 2016 RC, it had been left on.  Its presence with digital mirrors surprised me because my impression throughout the drive was that the field of vision in both the narrow and wide angle modes was so comprehensive as to be optimal.  In fact I couldn’t figure out without longer acquaintance exactly what the cameras could possibly fail to see and not simultaneously communicate to the driver.  Could it be that the BSM, which functions independently of the digital cameras through sensors located in the rear bumper, is insisted upon by regulatory authorities as a back-up to the digital monitoring system?

[DanD]

3 hours ago, Rabbers said:

When posting on the subject of digital mirrors (see above, Sept 15), I forgot to mention that the system includes a BSM function similar to that used for traditional mirrors, which should presumably mean that the cameras have not fully eliminated blind spots.  The BSM can be switched off but, as has been my own practice with normal mirrors since I first had the function in a 2016 RC, it had been left on.  Its presence with digital mirrors surprised me because my impression throughout the drive was that the field of vision in both the narrow and wide angle modes was so comprehensive as to be optimal.  In fact I couldn’t figure out without longer acquaintance exactly what the cameras could possibly fail to see and not simultaneously communicate to the driver.  Could it be that the BSM, which functions independently of the digital cameras through sensors located in the rear bumper, is insisted upon by regulatory authorities as a back-up to the digital monitoring system?

I'm intrigued... I thought the BSM worked with the cameras located on the underside of the side view mirrors...

[PDM]

9 minutes ago, DanD said:

I'm intrigued... I thought the BSM worked with the cameras located on the underside of the side view mirrors...

As far as I know the BSM works with single chip radar.  (as does the adaptive cruise control).

Perhaps they have eliminated blind spots with the cameras, but keep the BSM as an extra warning that it is not safe to change lane?

Paul

[Rabbers]

17 minutes ago, DanD said:

I'm intrigued... I thought the BSM worked with the cameras located on the underside of the side view mirrors...

So am I ... I thought it works from sensors located in the rear bumper which activate an indicator signal in the side-view mirrors.

[ColinBarber]

BSM / RCTA uses two radar sensors near the rear corners to give side/rear detection.

 

You arguably don't need BSM with the digital mirrors as you don't have a blind spot, but the system is independent and you need it for RCTA. Plus a warning light is quicker/easier to see compared to fully scanning the mirror/screen.

[Rabbers]

 

37 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

You arguably don't need BSM with the digital mirrors as you don't have a blind spot, but the system is independent and you need it for RCTA. Plus a warning light is quicker/easier to see compared to fully scanning the mirror/screen.

I would argue with "arguably".