Mirrorless users, do you primarily use your viewfinder?

[Ledgem]

I shoot 100% mirrorless, so I am always using an EVF in some form. I tend to use the traditional OVF-styled EVF more often because it's a bit more ergonomic (especially when using bulkier lenses - you're stabilizing the camera against yourself). If using smaller lenses and trying to get photos a bit lower down then I'll switch to the back screen (which is usually flipped out). When shooting video I tend to use the back screen a bit more.

EVF vs OVF... haven't run across this discussion in a long time. I had my reservations at first, but EVFs have come a long, long way. It is useful to see what the camera sees, and EVFs offer a few other benefits. If your camera model supports it, the camera can slow the refresh rate in dark scenes to essentially give you "night vision." Pair it up with magnifying the view and your ability to manually focus far exceeds what you could do with a traditional OVF. Speaking of manually focusing, most cameras also offer focus aids (usually in the form of a "shimmer" effect that comes into play when you're focusing), which is also useful. Maybe I was just never great at manually focusing but my ability to nail focus in scenarios where the autofocus won't work has greatly improved, thanks to EVFs.

The big argument against EVFs and mirrorless is battery life. I've become more aggressively about turning my camera off when not in use, and I am more aware of when my camera is on and the IR sensor indicating if the EVF should be on or off is pointed against my stomach or chest and is triggering the EVF to be active. It sounds like one of those annoyances you never want to deal with, but then becomes second nature and really isn't a big deal.

I wouldn't say that I could never be coaxed back into a mirror-based camera with an OVF, but I don't miss it. That's noteworthy because I initially fought the idea of it and really thought I would.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

That's why I like cameras with the on-off switch in a very easy location. Mine is right next to the shutter, so powering down is second nature, and readying the camera for a shot is fast. One think my G9 will also do automatically is when you put your eye to the EVF, the AF will lock on to whatever you are aiming at. I believe it can be turned off, but it's a way for the camera to be ready to shoot before even you are. The problem, of course, is accidentally triggering it while the camera is on. It goes back to that easy-to-reach power switch.

In another forum I visit, there's talk about CIPA battery ratings, which are based on the number of shots you can take. I think the rating system is not well suited for mirrorless cameras, as I believe battery line on those is more related to "on" time as a display will be on, as well as IBIS mechanisms. The sensor is active as well, so taking a picture on a mirrorless camera is essentially only adding one more step--writing to memory card. That all equates to a CIPA-rated 400 shots-per-charge camera that might actually only get you 200 shots of mixed use (my experience), or maybe 800 shots where many bursts of photos are taken in close succession. I bet in both cases, the camera's runtime was about the same. DSLRs, on the other hand, use virtually no battery while on unless they are taking a picture, which means they could probably last a really long time in mixed use on one battery charge.

 

[TheralSadurns]

I do as well. Olympus E-M5 Mk1 when it came out. Now Mk 3.
You can see everything in the viewfinder. Have no distracting light.

Only times I actually use the display is for general settings, video, and when shooting at weird angles where you couldn't use the viewfinder.

A little anecdote to make you guys laugh.
Like 10 years or so ago... I saw selfie-sticks for the very first time... when visiting London. I saw people in front of Buckingham using them to hold the camera HIGH into the air... to be able to shoot over the crowd. I was like "damn, that's a great idea... to have a handheld monopod, that you can use to stabilize your shots with... OR extend... to shoot 3 feet from above basically. I didn't even for a moment CONSIDER... that these things were supposed to help you take selfies.

 

[Ish]

I use the VF much more than the Liveview. It’s one of the things that puts me off mirrorless. I prefer seeing the image through a real VF rather than an EVF. Not been keen on any of them I’ve looked at. Think I’ll be a DSLR hold out for a while yet!

Well, ready for when you come over to the dark side, I'll recommend the Fuji X100 series and the X-Pro series which all have optical viewfinders as well as EV and back screens! ?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Well, ready for when you come over to the dark side, I'll recommend the Fuji X100 series and the X-Pro series which all have optical viewfinders as well as EV and back screens! ?

Well the amount of time I have for photography at the moment, I don't think the cost of changing systems is justified. Think I'll stick with what I've got. I've not noticed an improvement since mirrorless cameras came onto the scene in picture quality on here. For all the talk, they don't produce better images. They just present info in a different way through the EVF.

 

[mollyc]

Well the amount of time I have for photography at the moment, I don't think the cost of changing systems is justified. Think I'll stick with what I've got. I've not noticed an improvement since mirrorless cameras came onto the scene in picture quality on here. For all the talk, they don't produce better images. They just present info in a different way through the EVF.

I respect your decision to stick with what works for you. ?

However, for me personally, my images are better with mirrorless because of the amount of manual focus images I take. Being able to zoom in through the EVF and having a more responsive camera back than a dslr has increased my number of keepers and allows me to grab the tiniest sliver of focus that I would miss with an OVF camera.

In terms of resolution and print quality, yes that is the same for me between the two systems. But my shooting experience is better in terms of enjoyment and final result with mirrorless.

I’d say I’d never go back to an OVF except I like using my film camera.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I respect your decision to stick with what works for you. ?

However, for me personally, my images are better with mirrorless because of the amount of manual focus images I take. Being able to zoom in through the EVF and having a more responsive camera back than a dslr has increased my number of keepers and allows me to grab the tiniest sliver of focus that I would miss with an OVF camera.

In terms of resolution and print quality, yes that is the same for me between the two systems. But my shooting experience is better in terms of enjoyment and final result with mirrorless.

I’d say I’d never go back to an OVF except I like using my film camera.

Different strokes for different folks and all that. To be honest the investment I’d need verses the benefit isn’t worth it at this stage for me. Maybe in a few years.

 

[mollyc]

Different strokes for different folks and all that. To be honest the investment I’d need verses the benefit isn’t worth it at this stage for me. Maybe in a few years.

Clearly the gear you use works well for you, so I'd just keep on doing what makes you happy. ?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Clearly the gear you use works well for you, so I'd just keep on doing what makes you happy. ?

Likewise. DSLR, mirthless, film, smartphones. None of that is as important as the eye of the person taking the shot and how they (and sometimes others) feel about the experience.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I respect your decision to stick with what works for you. ?

However, for me personally, my images are better with mirrorless because of the amount of manual focus images I take. Being able to zoom in through the EVF and having a more responsive camera back than a dslr has increased my number of keepers and allows me to grab the tiniest sliver of focus that I would miss with an OVF camera.

In terms of resolution and print quality, yes that is the same for me between the two systems. But my shooting experience is better in terms of enjoyment and final result with mirrorless.

I’d say I’d never go back to an OVF except I like using my film camera.

Yeah, the best thing mirrorless cameras offer is the ability to zoom into the frame to fine focus. I was toying with the idea of a second compact M43 body, and as soon as I figured out it didn't have this feature, it went back in the box and back to the retailer. When I leave AF up to the camera when there's a shallow DOF, I often found that it slightly missed what I wanted in focus. That control makes all the difference for me.

 

[ericgtr12]

I respect your decision to stick with what works for you. ?

However, for me personally, my images are better with mirrorless because of the amount of manual focus images I take. Being able to zoom in through the EVF and having a more responsive camera back than a dslr has increased my number of keepers and allows me to grab the tiniest sliver of focus that I would miss with an OVF camera.

In terms of resolution and print quality, yes that is the same for me between the two systems. But my shooting experience is better in terms of enjoyment and final result with mirrorless.

I’d say I’d never go back to an OVF except I like using my film camera.

I have had great success with manually zoomed focusing in Live View on my 6D MKII, seems like the only difference here is you can't do it through the OVF which I think would be a pretty decent advantage honestly.

Another consideration for me is dynamic range and low light photography and it looks like the Sony is far more capable in this area, I'm seriously considering making the move to the AR III, it's more in the price range for what I want. I would just have to sell off all my Canon gear and apply that towards the switch.

 

[mollyc]

I have had great success with manually zoomed focusing in Live View on my 6D MKII, seems like the only difference here is you can't do it through the OVF which I think would be a pretty decent advantage honestly.

Another consideration for me is dynamic range and low light photography and it looks like the Sony is far more capable in this area, I'm seriously considering making the move to the AR III, it's more in the price range for what I want. I would just have to sell off all my Canon gear and apply that towards the switch.

Yes, of course you can use Live View and zoom, but I find the Z series "live view" to be much faster and responsive than it ever was on my D800/D700.

I do recommend using Live View and zooming for manual focus if you don't have an EVF. But whether the mirrorless camera backs are actually better or just my other cameras were too old, I prefer using the back of my Z series cameras to the D series cameras.

I know you are thinking of switching to Sony, but many people love their R series Canon mirrorless, so be sure to consider that as well. ?

 

[Clix Pix]

There would be an advantage in sticking with the Canon line, as long as there is a good selection of native lenses to use with the mirrorless bodies and not the need to fiddle with an adapter unless one doesn't mind using adapters. By employing adapters one can then keep and still use most or all of their older lenses, rather than needing to replace them, which for some people is considered advantageous, as they don't have to plunk out a lot of money immediately on new native lenses (if they are available). If some lenses that one particularly likes to use and prefers to have on the camera frequently are NOT available as native to the new mirrorless lineup, that can be problematic.

That was the concern I faced when contemplating a move to mirrorless, and so after much thought and weighing pros and cons, for me it worked out better to make the switch. I had a lot of older lenses, many of which would have become manual-focus only with the adapter and that was not something I wanted. My eyesight sure isn't improving the older I get! Focus Peaking does help quite a bit with manual focusing but it is not always 100% accurate.

Sony makes terrific sensors and does well with dynamic range; some bodies do better with low light photography/ISO than others. My A7R IV is wonderful, but sometimes doesn't do as well in low light as I'd like, and I think part of that is due to the high resolution. The A7III has been and still is one of Sony's most popular mirrorless full-frame cameras -- I think it is the one which really made the breakthrough for a lot of people who had previously been on the fence about going mirrorless. It was the camera which started me really beginning to think about heading in the mirrorless direction, even though it took me so long to make up my mind that by the time I did I went with a different model. Rumor has it that there will be a Sony A7IV released pretty soon -- maybe in the autumn. That should mean that prices will drop a bit on the A7III, which could be helpful.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I've only ever actually owned one mirrored camera body. I was late enough to the party that it was still being debated, but mirrorless seemed like what I wanted. I started with Sony mirrorless, went to a DSLR Nikon, and have been almost entirely Panasonic mirrorless (M43) ever since. I've tried Olympus a couple times but it just never quite stuck. I keep coming back to the G9's big EVF, and the body handles extremely well. Panny makes a FF kit, though the lens lineup isn't as big as Sony's, but at least there's Leica glass to be had.

 

[Clix Pix]

Isn't m4/3 starting to fade in popularity these days? That could be an issue for someone who is just starting out with mirrorless, and also much depends upon the type of shooting that the individual does as well, and the m4/3 sensor might not cut the mustard if one really needs the type of resolution available with a full-frame mirrorless camera.

 

[Ledgem]

I've not noticed an improvement since mirrorless cameras came onto the scene in picture quality on here. For all the talk, they don't produce better images. They just present info in a different way through the EVF.

This question comes off as confrontational, but it's not: how do you know they don't produce better images? I read some quote once about how there were really two parts to photographic artistic sense: knowing what to shoot (and how to shoot, and so on); and knowing what to share. There were some interesting statistics that pros at their best only ended up shooting and sharing some percentage of their work and while I can't remember the number, it was pretty low - something like 10-20%, I think? It was shared as a way to try and encourage beginners, I think. Either way, if you're only seeing what people perceive to be their best, how would you really know if they were getting those shots more easily, or if their keeper/share rate were higher? That's the part kept under the water, as it were.

On the topic of knowing what to share, though, I linked that with a quote I heard a much longer time ago, when I took a Chinese calligraphy class. There was some ancient quote about how there were three or four stages to mastery: the beginner views each of their works as a masterpiece; then they gain some perspective and feel that everything they make is trash; and finally, there's a sort of reconciliation in which you recognize both the good and bad of your work, and then you're really on the road to mastery. I felt it applied to photography, too. It probably does to most visual arts.

Isn't m4/3 starting to fade in popularity these days? That could be an issue for someone who is just starting out with mirrorless, and also much depends upon the type of shooting that the individual does as well, and the m4/3 sensor might not cut the mustard if one really needs the type of resolution available with a full-frame mirrorless camera.

All of us in the digital world are terrified of loss of company support. Support is needed not only to keep developing new products, but because digital creations can't be repaired by just about anyone, like old mechanical things were. So if I were starting anew today, I'd probably go with Sony or Canon, based not only on products but on financial health. Olympus sold off their camera division and it is now called OM-Digital, and while Panasonic still has their µ4/3 line, they're also busy expanding their "full-frame" camera line. Yet both Panasonic and OM-Digital have been releasing new products, so for now, there's still plenty of life in the system.

Support aside, µ4/3 is fine, depending on what you want to do. I think I've shared some thoughts here before, but briefly, here it is: I shoot with both µ4/3 (an E-M1 MkII and a slew of µ4/3 and 4/3 lenses) and with a Fujifilm GFX 50S (digital medium format, or "mini medium format"). The benefit is that both systems are fully mirrorless and also have a 4/3 aspect ratio, which is lovely for me. And I tell you honestly that if I were to blind myself, in the overwhelming majority of cases I cannot tell the difference in my photos. That's not to say that there's no difference at all; my widest-aperture lens on the GFX produces those dreamlike-state shallow DoF images that I simply cannot recreate in a single shot with my Olympus (although I could recreate it if I made a bokeh panorama, aka "the Brenizer technique"). The GFX image noise is about two stops better (ISO 6400 on the GFX is like ISO 1600 on the Olympus), and while I hesitate to lift shadows on the Olympus, the GFX allows me a lot more play with both the shadows and highlights. It's not perfect - I still routinely blow highlights with the GFX if I take a photo indoors where a window is in the scene, and I haven't used a flash - but there is a noticeable difference. Cropping ability with 50 megapixels is also crazy compared with the 20 megapixels of the Olympus, but in general I don't crop much. Notably, the Olympus does have an image mode that allows me to get 50 megapixel images, too, although it takes a bit of time. The Olympus also has a few tricks that the Fuji cannot do, like an ultra-low light mode (EVF refresh rate slows down to what ever is needed to give you an image; in a near pitch-black room, it may update the EVF once every two to four seconds, but you can see clearly and manually focus off of it) as well as a cheating action mode (images are buffered and when you press the shutter you end up with something like eight images taken in the milliseconds before and eight in the milliseconds after you pressed the button, to ensure you got the perfect moment - which can lead to some incredibly interesting results).

Long story short, I'm not selling my µ4/3 stuff - not at this point, anyway, and if they give me some features I'm interested in then I'd upgrade the camera body. I'll still build out my GFX system as well; I see roles for both. The GFX is just fun and offers satisfaction in the form of "the ultimate image quality" but the Olympus can just do so much more, at least at present. Plus, 20 megapixels isn't a problem, and it's a bit easier on my storage space than the 50 megapixel GFX files.

If someone like the look of the µ4/3 system, I think it's very capable and I can endorse it, despite the recent scare it went through.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

M43 is still seeing new bodies and lenses (GH6 with new sensor coming soon). TBH, M43 gets a bad rap despite it being a very capable platform. It's compact, (relatively) affordable, has arguably the best IBIS (handheld shots at near 1s? check), has a wide lens lineup, and offers a ton of technical features, like high-res modes, focus stacking, night-sky, etc. If I put my G9 on a tripod, I can use high-res mode to get up to an 80MP image. The E-M1iii can do this high-res mode handheld! Depending on what you set out to shoot, M43 could be just the ticket. At any rate, M43 seems to be very popular for video. A lot of the DPR videos are shot with the GH5 if that says anything.

 

[Ledgem]

M43 is still seeing new bodies and lenses (GH6 with new sensor coming soon). TBH, M43 gets a bad rap despite it being a very capable platform. It's compact, (relatively) affordable, has arguably the best IBIS (handheld shots at near 1s? check), has a wide lens lineup, and offers a ton of technical features, like high-res modes, focus stacking, night-sky, etc. If I put my G9 on a tripod, I can use high-res mode to get up to an 80MP image. The E-M1iii can do this high-res mode handheld! Depending on what you set out to shoot, M43 could be just the ticket. At any rate, M43 seems to be very popular for video. A lot of the DPR videos are shot with the GH5 if that says anything.

It's not just µ4/3 - I was a 4/3 shooter before that, and it was routinely trashed by people using APS-C and "full frame" cameras. It developed a reputation for having a noisy sensor (arguably true back in the 4/3 days, a bit less significant now) and deeper depth of field, which was a major benefit coming from film, but is a liability in a world where everyone wants their DoF to be razor-thin and views images at small sizes on small screens that makes DoF appear deeper than it really is. Noise is what it is, but the DoF thing can be a major strength, depending on how you play it and what you're after. I'd hate to even try to use my GFX 50S for birding... people do it, but it's not an optimal system for it.

Playing on both sides of the sensor size fence has led to some interesting observations, too. 4/3 and µ4/3 were trashed for being the smallest sensor size of interchangeable lens cameras - OK, fine. Bigger is better, they said, so the GFX should have been heralded as one step from the ultimate one could aspire to, right? (With the ultimate being a Phase One system, which uses a "true" medium format sensor size.) Yet many of the comments from "full frame" users were quite the opposite. There tend to be a lot of people complaining that they don't see a difference between the GFX and their full-frame setups, or that the difference is minimal and doesn't justify the cost, or that a thinner DoF can be achieved with "full frame" setups because GFX doesn't yet have any ridiculously wide-aperture lenses (most are f/4; we have one f/2 and one f/1.7). A bit ironic, considering that people used to say that there was a huge difference between µ4/3 and APS-C, even though the percentage difference in sensor size between those two is about the same as between "full frame" and GFX medium format.

Basically, it seems to me that almost any sensor size aside from "full frame" will be criticized. µ4/3 is not perfect (no system is), and it may not be the strongest choice for particular applications, but it is at least very competent for just about any type of photography you could want to do.

 

[Apple fanboy]

This question comes off as confrontational, but it's not: how do you know they don't produce better images? I read some quote once about how there were really two parts to photographic artistic sense: knowing what to shoot (and how to shoot, and so on); and knowing what to share. There were some interesting statistics that pros at their best only ended up shooting and sharing some percentage of their work and while I can't remember the number, it was pretty low - something like 10-20%, I think? It was shared as a way to try and encourage beginners, I think. Either way, if you're only seeing what people perceive to be their best, how would you really know if they were getting those shots more easily, or if their keeper/share rate were higher? That's the part kept under the water, as it were.

On the topic of knowing what to share, though, I linked that with a quote I heard a much longer time ago, when I took a Chinese calligraphy class. There was some ancient quote about how there were three or four stages to mastery: the beginner views each of their works as a masterpiece; then they gain some perspective and feel that everything they make is trash; and finally, there's a sort of reconciliation in which you recognize both the good and bad of your work, and then you're really on the road to mastery. I felt it applied to photography, too. It probably does to most visual arts.


All of us in the digital world are terrified of loss of company support. Support is needed not only to keep developing new products, but because digital creations can't be repaired by just about anyone, like old mechanical things were. So if I were starting anew today, I'd probably go with Sony or Canon, based not only on products but on financial health. Olympus sold off their camera division and it is now called OM-Digital, and while Panasonic still has their µ4/3 line, they're also busy expanding their "full-frame" camera line. Yet both Panasonic and OM-Digital have been releasing new products, so for now, there's still plenty of life in the system.

Support aside, µ4/3 is fine, depending on what you want to do. I think I've shared some thoughts here before, but briefly, here it is: I shoot with both µ4/3 (an E-M1 MkII and a slew of µ4/3 and 4/3 lenses) and with a Fujifilm GFX 50S (digital medium format, or "mini medium format"). The benefit is that both systems are fully mirrorless and also have a 4/3 aspect ratio, which is lovely for me. And I tell you honestly that if I were to blind myself, in the overwhelming majority of cases I cannot tell the difference in my photos. That's not to say that there's no difference at all; my widest-aperture lens on the GFX produces those dreamlike-state shallow DoF images that I simply cannot recreate in a single shot with my Olympus (although I could recreate it if I made a bokeh panorama, aka "the Brenizer technique"). The GFX image noise is about two stops better (ISO 6400 on the GFX is like ISO 1600 on the Olympus), and while I hesitate to lift shadows on the Olympus, the GFX allows me a lot more play with both the shadows and highlights. It's not perfect - I still routinely blow highlights with the GFX if I take a photo indoors where a window is in the scene, and I haven't used a flash - but there is a noticeable difference. Cropping ability with 50 megapixels is also crazy compared with the 20 megapixels of the Olympus, but in general I don't crop much. Notably, the Olympus does have an image mode that allows me to get 50 megapixel images, too, although it takes a bit of time. The Olympus also has a few tricks that the Fuji cannot do, like an ultra-low light mode (EVF refresh rate slows down to what ever is needed to give you an image; in a near pitch-black room, it may update the EVF once every two to four seconds, but you can see clearly and manually focus off of it) as well as a cheating action mode (images are buffered and when you press the shutter you end up with something like eight images taken in the milliseconds before and eight in the milliseconds after you pressed the button, to ensure you got the perfect moment - which can lead to some incredibly interesting results).

Long story short, I'm not selling my µ4/3 stuff - not at this point, anyway, and if they give me some features I'm interested in then I'd upgrade the camera body. I'll still build out my GFX system as well; I see roles for both. The GFX is just fun and offers satisfaction in the form of "the ultimate image quality" but the Olympus can just do so much more, at least at present. Plus, 20 megapixels isn't a problem, and it's a bit easier on my storage space than the 50 megapixel GFX files.

If someone like the look of the µ4/3 system, I think it's very capable and I can endorse it, despite the recent scare it went through.

You are 100% correct that we should only show our best work if we want to be considered anything other than amateur. Or at the very least apply some sort of mental filter that this image isn’t good enough!
My comment was based on what I see (I don’t take your comments as confrontational by the way and I’m not anti mirrorless). I just think there are no benefits for what I shoot at this stage that justifies the expense. When new equipment comes out, does that make the old tech obsolete? In some cases yes. But much less so with cameras.
For all the talk of focus peaking or seeing the exposure as you shoot it in the EVF, I only see that as a benefit if you find you expose or focus incorrectly in the first place. I shoot manual exposure 99% of the time with no issues. I use auto focus most of the time (only exception being some macro) and that works for me.
I don’t need any more keepers. I get more than I share now.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Another consideration for me is dynamic range and low light photography and it looks like the Sony is far more capable in this area, I'm seriously considering making the move to the AR III, it's more in the price range for what I want.

Here's a story... I came from film, going Canon APS-C and FF and now after comparing and thinking about it for a long time, APS-C Fuji. I noticed when I switched to DSLR I took less photos than in the old film days. I didn't have a camera with me all the time, because it was "less fun" for me. I seriously considered mirrorless Sony. Technically excellent and great choice of glass with Sony/Zeiss/Sigma/Tamron. But I find the usability hideous. And yes, that is a very subjective thing. I'm a hobbyist, not a professional. I don't sell photos nor print them in poster/billboard format. I'm sure usability is irrelevant for a professional photographer making money. They have their camera with them and have to use them, it does not have to be fun as long as they get the shot. If you look over in the dpreview forum, plenty of people use specific gear for professional jobs and other cameras in their spare time. For me, I found out that I enjoy shooting with Fuji X-x/X-xx and Leica M (warning, it's a rangefinder) more than the Nikon Z I also considered. And also more than Canon R and Sony A7.

From a technical point Sony is a no brainer due to lens choices. Canon and Nikon mirrorless are also fantastic, but lack the glass at the moment (not counting old adapted lenses). I'm sure they'll get there. So this made me wonder what woud I "miss" when going somewhere else. And the answer is, unless you're a professional photographer pixel peeping all the time, you won't miss anything. The difference in quality with modern cameras is so small, it's not worth thinking about it. Focus on what glass you want, what is available and the most of all which system makes you want to take the camera with you and start shooting. The camera you use most, is the right choice for you. If you're a Canon person, by all means get a R5/6. If you love the Sony system, go for it, but don't do it because of a spec sheet and the AF is a tad bit faster. I think you would regret it in time. I'm pretty sure a Canon/Nikon/Fuji would be just fine for 99.9% photographers. Let your camera "speak to you".

Isn't m4/3 starting to fade in popularity these days?

Fade, maybe, but it's not going anywhere. µ4/3 has one big advantage for me and that is size/weight. Quality is great. Personally, I've aways found the DoF a little different compared to APS-C and FF. Nothing that would be a killer argument, but different. Maybe it's the lenses or just me, but IIRC Jared Polin had a video on this some time back when he looked at an Olympus cam. If that doesn't bother you or you're mainly doing news/sports photography, it might be an excellent choice.

There were some interesting statistics that pros at their best only ended up shooting and sharing some percentage of their work and while I can't remember the number, it was pretty low - something like 10-20%, I think?

I'm not a professional, but I know some people making a living with photography. I'd be surprised if it's 10-20% unless you're talking photo shoots in studios or so. I'd guess the real number of "normal" (non-studio) shots is lower.

It's compact, (relatively) affordable, has arguably the best IBIS (handheld shots at near 1s? check)

Physics works. The smaller the sensor, the better IBIS can be implemented. There's less mass to move around. Or in other words, try holding an iPad steady in front of you, then try the same with a 65" TV.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Here's a story... I came from film, going Canon APS-C and FF and now after comparing and thinking about it for a long time, APS-C Fuji. I noticed when I switched to DSLR I took less photos than in the old film days. I didn't have a camera with me all the time, because it was "less fun" for me. I seriously considered mirrorless Sony. Technically excellent and great choice of glass with Sony/Zeiss/Sigma/Tamron. But I find the usability hideous. And yes, that is a very subjective thing. I'm a hobbyist, not a professional. I don't sell photos nor print them in poster/billboard format. I'm sure usability is irrelevant for a professional photographer making money. They have their camera with them and have to use them, it does not have to be fun as long as they get the shot. If you look over in the dpreview forum, plenty of people use specific gear for professional jobs and other cameras in their spare time. For me, I found out that I enjoy shooting with Fuji X-x/X-xx and Leica M (warning, it's a rangefinder) more than the Nikon Z I also considered. And also more than Canon R and Sony A7.

From a technical point Sony is a no brainer due to lens choices. Canon and Nikon mirrorless are also fantastic, but lack the glass at the moment (not counting old adapted lenses). I'm sure they'll get there. So this made me wonder what woud I "miss" when going somewhere else. And the answer is, unless you're a professional photographer pixel peeping all the time, you won't miss anything. The difference in quality with modern cameras is so small, it's not worth thinking about it. Focus on what glass you want, what is available and the most of all which system makes you want to take the camera with you and start shooting. The camera you use most, is the right choice for you. If you're a Canon person, by all means get a R5/6. If you love the Sony system, go for it, but don't do it because of a spec sheet and the AF is a tad bit faster. I think you would regret it in time. I'm pretty sure a Canon/Nikon/Fuji would be just fine for 99.9% photographers. Let your camera "speak to you".

Fade, maybe, but it's not going anywhere. µ4/3 has one big advantage for me and that is size/weight. Quality is great. Personally, I've aways found the DoF a little different compared to APS-C and FF. Nothing that would be a killer argument, but different. Maybe it's the lenses or just me, but IIRC Jared Polin had a video on this some time back when he looked at an Olympus cam. If that doesn't bother you or you're mainly doing news/sports photography, it might be an excellent choice.

I'm not a professional, but I know some people making a living with photography. I'd be surprised if it's 10-20% unless you're talking photo shoots in studios or so. I'd guess the real number of "normal" (non-studio) shots is lower.

Physics works. The smaller the sensor, the better IBIS can be implemented. There's less mass to move around. Or in other words, try holding an iPad steady in front of you, then try the same with a 65" TV.

Couldn’t agree more. Just use what you want. The IQ from one brand to the next is non existent. It’s just personal choice.

 

[Clix Pix]

At one point in time I actually thought I was through with photography except for the occasional one-off snapshot here-and-there, and sold my Wimberley gimbal and my longest lens, a Nikon 300mm f/2.8, but still kept most of the other lenses and the D3. When I DID shoot, I found myself picking up the NEX 7 and the couple of lenses I had with it more often than the D3, though, because of the smaller, lighter body and found that I quickly got used to the EVF and other differences between it and the DSLR. I also more often than not chose the small RX100 that I had at that time, too, as it was good for travel. Time went on....

Then a trip came up which necessitated buying gear more suited to that particular occasion, and after I returned home I found myself shooting more and more.....most of the time with that bridge camera, which again had the EVF. The DSLR sat in the camera bag, along with its lenses. Eventually, though, I started getting the itch to shoot tabletops and macros again, and the bridge camera isn't well-suited to that. I began thinking of getting new gear and it was a pretty quick decision to go with mirrorless rather than buying another DSLR, as I could see the direction in which the photography world was heading. Little did I realize that I'd be once again using a Wimberley gimbal from time to time and a long lens to capture birds!

AFB wrote: "When new equipment comes out, does that make the old tech obsolete? In some cases yes. But much less so with cameras."

Are my images better now with the gear I'm using in 2021 than the gear I used in 2008, the year the D3 and the D300 came out, and beyond? I would say I took some pretty good photos with those older cameras and various lenses, and I loved the cameras I had then, but frankly, I wouldn't be happy using them now. I know that there are a few people who still do use the D3, so it's probably not obsolete, per se, but I think most photographers have moved on. The technology in the newer cameras definitely has advantages over the first few generations of DSLRs. Since I never got around to updating my Nikon gear during the years I wasn't shooting much, I missed out on some of the improvements made in their DSLRs and lenses.

The photos I shoot now still reflect my particular "style" and choice of subjects but the gear I'm using these days seems more responsive in some ways, and the EVF provides me with immediate information even before I press the shutter button, which is a time-saver (no need to "chimp" afterwards, to retake a shot that wasn't quite right in terms of exposure, etc.). Also, and this is important, too for me -- along with photographic gear, image editing software has improved significantly over the years as well, making it a little easier and more intuitive to work with one's images during the editing phase.

AFB wrote: "I've not noticed an improvement since mirrorless cameras came onto the scene in picture quality on here. For all the talk, they don't produce better images."

As was also noted later on in the discussion, it's still the person who is doing the shooting, making the images, who in the end, really is responsible for "producing better images," but IMHO the gear is also definitely a factor. We all realize that. Some shots that I've done over the past year and a half or so, sure, I probably could've also done with the D3, but other shots I couldn't have done at all, or couldn't have extracted as much detail and resolution or have captured as quickly due to changes in sensor, resolution, ISO capabilities, rate of frames-per-second, etc.

Now that I'm happily ensconced in the mirrorless world I'm not the least bit interested in ever returning to a DSLR!

Yes, the quality of images being displayed on the POTD thread does seem to have slipped quite a bit through the years. We are seeing more snapshots and what some of us would regard as throwaway shots now. What's the reason? Type of gear? The person behind the lens? Lack of technical photographic or editing skills? Failure to perceive the differences between a "snapshot" and a photograph taken with intent and attention to details?

To answer my own questions, I would guess a combination of all of the above. I think that one clear reason for this is that many of the participants who were around in the early days when iGary, a photographer himself, first started the thread (which, yes, specifies that people share their best shots), are not here any more -- some of them left MR long ago, others may have just drifted away but may pop back in once in a while and some may have simply lost interest in photography. Most of those people were either professional photographers or serious amateurs, and back then shared some pretty stunning images.

Also there does seem to be some confusion between the threads posted on the Digital Photography forum and in the Photo Gallery section of MR. The latter seems to house the "Show a Picture of Your Beer!" "Show Your Desktop!" "Pictures of Your Car!" and "Pictures of Your Pet!" kinds of threads, as well as the threads specific to a particular model of iPhone ("Photos Shot ONLY With Your iPhone 12 Max!") many of which indeed do fall into the snapshot type of image......

 

[Apple fanboy]

I had the D300 and agree my D750 is an improvement. But 10 years development will do that.
For me personally the benefits aren’t there verses they expense. But for those that do, do enjoy. The most important thing is people enjoy their photography.
Couldn’t agree more about the snapshot comments @Clix Pix, but that’s the world we live in now.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Yes, the quality of images being displayed on the POTD thread does seem to have slipped quite a bit through the years. We are seeing more snapshots and what some of us would regard as throwaway shots now. What's the reason? Type of gear? The person behind the lens? Lack of technical photographic or editing skills? Failure to perceive the differences between a "snapshot" and a photograph taken with intent and attention to details?

Probably an even simpler explanation. Most people haven't been free to move around for over a year. I've been pretty fortunate in that my subject matter has always been the immediate world around me. All the landscape shooters here have probably been starving for material, and perhaps even down about it.

Also, it's tough to get better unless you surround yourself with better. The POTD section is pretty kind to beginners. You gotta start somewhere right? I'm sure my stuff today is at least slightly less bad than when I joined 4 years ago!

 

[Clix Pix]

Good point about the Pandemic preventing people from going further afield than their own home and immediate environs..... I tend to forget that since I'm fortunate in where I live, which features a rather scenic neighborhood and small body of water right outside my door and offers plenty of variety in subject choices! If the weather is bad I've always got something interesting to shoot that I find around the house, too....

Yes, it's good to surround oneself with "better," but if the POTD section becomes more and more glutted with snapshots of cats and such, how is that going to help a beginner learn to discern between an image which is average and an image which is "better," and what makes the difference?

Also, the purpose of the POTD isn't really as an instructional thread, although one can indeed learn from looking at the various images shared on a daily basis. The thread started out as and still is simply for photographers to share the work they've done and enjoy doing. If someone is serious about wanting to learn more about photography there are online courses available from a number of sources and there are also actual in-person courses in local community colleges and such as well. Books and workbooks, video tutorials....all can be useful as learning tools.