What is the fuss about mirrorless?

[phrehdd]

ApfelKuchen - I think we are not too far apart on thought here but there are some differences. First, I'll address the fact that two of the Fuji X line popular models are indeed rangefinder cameras with parallax correction: Fuji X100 series and the X Pro line up. What makes them interesting is they are hybrid in having also EVF.

EVF vs WYSIWYG - we can discuss this, at least for this coming year, before there are notable changes and there are pros and cons for both. However, direct view via DSLR by most standards has some advantages and it is possible to include some data in the "window" next to the the actual view as what was done with SLRs of yore.

As for technology vs problem solving - we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the latter is what many of the better film photographers have over many of today's photographers. Interestingly enough, with all these new "ease" in taking photos, have we really seen anything of a magnitude leap in images? There are of course some fantastic/outstanding images out there but are they that much better than the limited results we get from film? I don't believe so. I don't believe the technology improves problem solving, envisioning, and other items often related to the past. I do believe there are some truly excellent photographers that stand above others because they start with this talent or mindset. - The latter is of course, opinion.

"Does the need to think change?" ... Well, that's what its all about and I contend that technology makes often for less thinking or is substituted. When people put on their photo "A" game, the A stands for auto.

I honestly hope people find cameras that bring out the best in their abilities and they create images that reflect those abilities and for some, it might not be more than a selfie with friends and for others, its climbing a volcano and getting that one shot, at the right time of day, where the sun is at that one angle that reflects natural light in and creates that momentary view - now all caught in a digital image.

 

[Apple fanboy]

ApfelKuchen - I think we are not too far apart on thought here but there are some differences. First, I'll address the fact that two of the Fuji X line popular models are indeed rangefinder cameras with parallax correction: Fuji X100 series and the X Pro line up. What makes them interesting is they are hybrid in having also EVF.

EVF vs WYSIWYG - we can discuss this, at least for this coming year, before there are notable changes and there are pros and cons for both. However, direct view via DSLR by most standards has some advantages and it is possible to include some data in the "window" next to the the actual view as what was done with SLRs of yore.

As for technology vs problem solving - we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the latter is what many of the better film photographers have over many of today's photographers. Interestingly enough, with all these new "ease" in taking photos, have we really seen anything of a magnitude leap in images? There are of course some fantastic/outstanding images out there but are they that much better than the limited results we get from film? I don't believe so. I don't believe the technology improves problem solving, envisioning, and other items often related to the past. I do believe there are some truly excellent photographers that stand above others because they start with this talent or mindset. - The latter is of course, opinion.

"Does the need to think change?" ... Well, that's what its all about and I contend that technology makes often for less thinking or is substituted. When people put on their photo "A" game, the A stands for auto.

I honestly hope people find cameras that bring out the best in their abilities and they create images that reflect those abilities and for some, it might not be more than a selfie with friends and for others, its climbing a volcano and getting that one shot, at the right time of day, where the sun is at that one angle that reflects natural light in and creates that momentary view - now all caught in a digital image.

I think part of the problem is your are comparing film to digital (which isn't actually the point of this thread!).
With film you would only see quality work from others in a book or exhibition.
The trouble with the digital age is you are bombarded with images, many of questionable quality.
I try things with a digital camera I'd probably never have tried with film. But I shoot in manual (although I use autofocus) most of the time.

 

[kenoh]

I think part of the problem is your are comparing film to digital (which isn't actually the point of this thread!).
With film you would only see quality work from others in a book or exhibition.
The trouble with the digital age is you are bombarded with images, many of questionable quality.
I try things with a digital camera I'd probably never have tried with film. But I shoot in manual (although I use autofocus) most of the time.

To quote a friend... "It has never been easier to be seen, yet harder to be noticed."

 

[digitalFlack]

Frida,

If you have to ask about the difference between M4/3 and DSLR, you really don't need to be in the DSLR market.

If you can't explain why you need live-view - mirror, or why you need the bigger faster sensor, or why you need a 14 pound 400mm lens, then don't pay 200%-400% more for the DSLR kit, get a good M4/3 around $1500-$2000 with two lenses (7-14 & 14-110mm) and if you grow out of that system in a year, you can easily sell it for over $1000 and move on.

I was a professional photographer for five years, Leica, Nikon and Mamiya large frame. Professionals (weddings, portrait, sports, advertising) need big sensors, large pixel cameras for plenty of reasons (10 fps, able to crop a 8000x6000, super light collectors). You don't need those if you are asking the question.

Most DSLRs have hundred of features never used by the purchaser, i.e. they bought bling. The extra couple thusand dollars makes them feel better, like a Porsche owner feels better than an Accura owner - even if he/she never gets a chance to open it up on a highway (as in where?)

Good luck,

DF

So here is a question to the ring, please.

As I will finally make the switch from DX to FF and my plan is to get D760 (or D750 depending on price/features) with 28-70 2.8 lens would I be better off to get mirrorless? ie. is mirrorless the future here? What I'm asking is that when I make a purchase I like to make one that will last me as long as possible. I've had my D90 since 2009 and it served me well except the limitations it has especially in low light.

Few months ago I did a portrait photography workshop which I really enjoyed and plan to do more of that kinda stuff. I also enjoy landscape and did few weddings (as an additional photographer as my friends like my pics).

DSLR are not going anywhere for the next 10 years or so, right? The reason I ask is because I don't wanna spend close to £3k on new body and lens only to find out that everyone is mirrorless in 3 years time. )))

Ideally, I wanna buy the gear I meantioned above and from then update the body once every 7-10 years or so and keep the lens forever as those should last a lifetime.

Opinions, please?

 

[Freida]

Frida,

If you have to ask about the difference between M4/3 and DSLR, you really don't need to be in the DSLR market.

If you can't explain why you need live-view - mirror, or why you need the bigger faster sensor, or why you need a 14 pound 400mm lens, then don't pay 200%-400% more for the DSLR kit, get a good M4/3 around $1500-$2000 with two lenses (7-14 & 14-110mm) and if you grow out of that system in a year, you can easily sell it for over $1000 and move on.

I was a professional photographer for five years, Leica, Nikon and Mamiya large frame. Professionals (weddings, portrait, sports, advertising) need big sensors, large pixel cameras for plenty of reasons (10 fps, able to crop a 8000x6000, super light collectors). You don't need those if you are asking the question.

Most DSLRs have hundred of features never used by the purchaser, i.e. they bought bling. The extra couple thusand dollars makes them feel better, like a Porsche owner feels better than an Accura owner - even if he/she never gets a chance to open it up on a highway (as in where?)

Good luck,

DF

I don't wanna grow out of anything. Your proposal suggests that I waste $500-$1000 in a year. No, thank you.
I wanna buy a system that will upgrade my D90 setup that now shows limitations even if I learnt to work with it and have that new system for another 7-10 years and then revaluate if I need something better or not. Its that simple.

I looked into mirrorless after opening this debate and I still don't see the benefits as those good ones are not that much smaller so the size benefits is negligible for me. Therefore, I wanna stick to DSLR. Lets talk in 10 years how much of a bling that was for me. How much I have improved and grown as a photographer and then we might see if your suggestion was correct or not.
For now, I want setup that I will learn from and that I will gradually benefit from even if I don't get the full potential at the beginning. In fact, that is the whole point of learning. Start slow and build up your skill/knowledge.

But hey, if you have that much experience, is it ok to ask you for feedback when I have something to show so you can advice me what to improve next time?
Thanks

 

[kenoh]

Lol... Yep, just park the cash somewhere and whenever the event happens, then do what you feel best.... OR... Buy the 24-70 now or the 85 now and learn to use that on the D90 to keep you learning until the d-unicorn (sorry being flippant just an attempt at humour) is announced.

 

[Hughmac]

Lol... Yep, just park the cash somewhere and whenever the event happens, then do what you feel best.... OR... Buy the 24-70 now or the 85 now and learn to use that on the D90 to keep you learning until the d-unicorn (sorry being flippant just an attempt at humour) is announced.

That's an idea, get the lenses in now then it'll be less of a hit when you purchase the camera body.

Cheers

Hugh

 

[brdeveloper]

Hello guys,

can someone enlighten me please what the fuss is all about for mirrorless cameras? I read Nikon Rumors and people there seems to be obsessed about the mirrorless possibility of Nikon yet I don't understand why. Isn't DSLR technically better and more versatile? If mirrorless has attachable lens like DSLR then what is the point of having mirrorless in the first place? (apart from having slightly smaller and lighter body?)
To me, it seems that mirrorless still costs tons of money so why is there such a crave?

I'm confused why would anyone wanna spend around $2000 for mirrorless when for the same price I can have D750 for example.
Can someone enlighten me so I understand this madness

Thank you so much

Mirrorless cameras are nice. A prism/mirror/viewfinder degrades focus accuracy, even more if you use manual focus lenses. Ok, high-end DSLRs suffer less from this issue, but I don't see a reason to use an optical viewfinder these days. I once tried to exchange a focusing screen of my Pentax K100D (a pretty old DSLR these days) and it messed with the autofocus system, bringing slightly blurry pictures. This happened even with 70's entry-level SLRs because of QC issues. Don't know about modern DSLRs, but they probably have some kind of focus imprecision caused by the mirror/focusing screen/prism system.

A live view with a good screen will give you a preview of how your picture will look in your laptop screen. Also, you can have adapters for adapting almost any mount in a mirrorless. If you have a full-frame mirrorless then you're in heaven. You can virtually use any manual focus system without crop factor. Don't know if there are adapters which support autofocus because it's not of my interest. In other words: try to use a Canon FD lens on a Canon DSLR. You'll have to use an adapter which adds an optical element, degrading the quality of your vintage FD-L lens. With a mirrorless there is space enough to add a thick adapter without adding crop factor to the lens.

In short, DSLRs are for people who love optical viewfinders, like audiophiles that love turntables. Most people are more concerned with the final result, and in this area, a mirrorless camera will suit perfectly our needs, even more than a DSLR.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Mirrorless cameras are nice. A prism/mirror/viewfinder degrades focus accuracy, even more if you use manual focus lenses. Ok, high-end DSLRs suffer less from this issue, but I don't see a reason to use an optical viewfinder these days. I once tried to exchange a focusing screen of my Pentax K100D (a pretty old DSLR these days) and it messed with the autofocus system, bringing slightly blurry pictures. This happened even with 70's entry-level SLRs because of QC issues. Don't know about modern DSLRs, but they probably have some kind of focus imprecision caused by the mirror/focusing screen/prism system.

A live view with a good screen will give you a preview of how your picture will look in your laptop screen. Also, you can have adapters for adapting almost any mount in a mirrorless. If you have a full-frame mirrorless then you're in heaven. You can virtually use any manual focus system without crop factor. Don't know if there are adapters which support autofocus because it's not of my interest. In other words: try to use a Canon FD lens on a Canon DSLR. You'll have to use an adapter which adds an optical element, degrading the quality of your vintage FD-L lens. With a mirrorless there is space enough to add a thick adapter without adding crop factor to the lens.

In short, DSLRs are for people who love optical viewfinders, like audiophiles that love turntables. Most people are more concerned with the final result, and in this area, a mirrorless camera will suit perfectly our needs, even more than a DSLR.

In bright sunlight I'll take an optical viewfinder over a screen any day. Also when shooting wildlife.

 

[brdeveloper]

In bright sunlight I'll take an optical viewfinder over a screen any day. Also when shooting wildlife.

You're right. I was a bit egocentric in my post. However, in a mirrorless you can always attach an EVF if needed.

 

[Hughmac]

The EVF in my Sony mirrorless is pretty much as good as the optical was in my DSLR, but with more info. included.

Cheers

Hugh

 

[Mark0]

The EVF in the X-T2 is great being large, bright and clear with 60fps.

Then when you put the camera into 'Boost' mode using the grip, it becomes fantastic with all of the above, but at 100fps. Lag? What lag?

Apparently, the EVF could be ramped up to 120fps via a Kaizen firmware update in the future - Fuji have stated the EVF has the capability.

 

[maflynn]

In bright sunlight I'll take an optical viewfinder over a screen any day. Also when shooting wildlife.

Agreed, I have a small Olympus that I take sometimes but I've long stopped taking it when I know I'll be outside. The screen is beautful but hard to see in bright sunlight. I much prefer my OMD EM5 for those situations.

 

[arogge]

A benefit of some Mirrorless cameras is that they are silent, unlike the SLR which makes a lot of noise when pushed for a burst inside a quiet theater or near a microphone.

 

[576316]

Smaller, cheaper, lighter, more convenient, no forfeiting of features. I never used to take my Nikon D7000 anywhere because it was a big heavy lump of inconvenient mass. Whereas now I have a Sony A6000, which has a better sensors and more features than my D7000 and less than half the size and weight. Wouldn't go back to a DSLR if you paid me, they're a dying breed.

People keep talking about Nikon and Canon in regards to mirrorless cameras because they're the two camera giants and they're still beating the DSLR dead horse with a stick. While everyone around them is innovating in the mirrorless market (mainly Sony) and trying to move things forward.

It'll be a while until mirrorless cameras entirely replace the need for DSLRs in a professional environment, but the day will come. Lots of professionals I know of have already switched to Sony's A7 series - because they're full frame mirrorless cameras.

I cannot recommend the Sony A6000 series enough. It is categorically the best, more versatile camera I've ever used and it's been incredibly popular with the masses. But I think there's been an A6300 and A6500 since this model, adding various features - but they're mostly the same. I do all of my editing with VSCO for iOS and the A6000 makes it so easy to transfer full resolution JPEGs to my iPad for editing and sharing, and the RAWs go in my backup at home.

 

[The Bad Guy]

I do all of my editing with VSCO for iOS

So you're pro as, bro.

 

[576316]

So you're pro as, bro.

Please quote me the part where I mentioned being a professional photographer? Also please don't use your ignorance to insult somebody regarding their choice of editing tools. VSCO is a very powerful mobile editor which makes my whole operation extremely portable, whilst also achieving the look and feel of the images I want.

You've just nullified any argument you could possible come out with, purely by your turn of phrase.

People like you are what make the photography community so unbearable. I rarely tread these boards because sometimes it can become very insufferable. I hope you're proud of yourself and the attitude that you have.

Ahaha. I can't even get over the shear ignorance that your comment screams. I just, I feel bad for you man.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Smaller, cheaper, lighter, more convenient, no forfeiting of features. I never used to take my Nikon D7000 anywhere because it was a big heavy lump of inconvenient mass. Whereas now I have a Sony A6000, which has a better sensors and more features than my D7000 and less than half the size and weight. Wouldn't go back to a DSLR if you paid me, they're a dying breed.

People keep talking about Nikon and Canon in regards to mirrorless cameras because they're the two camera giants and they're still beating the DSLR dead horse with a stick. While everyone around them is innovating in the mirrorless market (mainly Sony) and trying to move things forward.

It'll be a while until mirrorless cameras entirely replace the need for DSLRs in a professional environment, but the day will come. Lots of professionals I know of have already switched to Sony's A7 series - because they're full frame mirrorless cameras.

I cannot recommend the Sony A6000 series enough. It is categorically the best, more versatile camera I've ever used and it's been incredibly popular with the masses. But I think there's been an A6300 and A6500 since this model, adding various features - but they're mostly the same. I do all of my editing with VSCO for iOS and the A6000 makes it so easy to transfer full resolution JPEGs to my iPad for editing and sharing, and the RAWs go in my backup at home.

The day may come but lets be honest the weapon of choice for most pro's is the DSLR.

I'm happy with that old technology. I'll leave others to make do with the mirrorless and the compromises it currently brings.
[doublepost=1484763840][/doublepost]

So you're pro as, bro.

Lol. Your stuff is all shot on a disk camera isn't it?

 

[jaduff46]

Seems to me, relatively new to both DSLR and mirrorless, that it's more about the craft than the gear. People, including myself, have posted reasonable pictures with iPhones. Maybe not the greatest, but we're all still learning and experimenting.

Believe it was @Hughmac who contrasted the weight of his DSLR kit at 20lb to the same mirrorless kit at 6lb. I chose the Sony A6000 with the 18-105 f4 OSS as a reasonable starting point ($1,000~) to start learning the craft, and given that less weight makes it easier on my 70 year old body I'm likely to keep taking it wherever I go.

BTW I love seeing the constructive commentary and photos every day!

 

[DevNull0]

I'm confused why would anyone wanna spend around $2000 for mirrorless when for the same price I can have D750 for example.
Can someone enlighten me so I understand this madness

DSLR is far superior in features and image quality. But Mirrorless are smaller.

If you read the iPhone forums there are no shortage of people who believe their phones are as good as "professional cameras" and offer "DSLR quality", real DSLRs are dinosaurs. They actually convinced themselves. You even hear any camera is as good as any other in the right hands. The people who love their mirrorless cameras are just a different part of the same spectrum. They've convinced themselves that DSLR is old tech and their mirrorless are just as good in a smaller package.

But the laws of physics can't be broken and when it comes to optics and sensors, for any given material, size matters.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Seems to me, relatively new to both DSLR and mirrorless, that it's more about the craft than the gear. People, including myself, have posted reasonable pictures with iPhones. Maybe not the greatest, but we're all still learning and experimenting.

Believe it was @Hughmac who contrasted the weight of his DSLR kit at 20lb to the same mirrorless kit at 6lb. I chose the Sony A6000 with the 18-105 f4 OSS as a reasonable starting point ($1,000~) to start learning the craft, and given that less weight makes it easier on my 70 year old body I'm likely to keep taking it wherever I go.

BTW I love seeing the constructive commentary and photos every day!

Correct the craft is more important than the gear.
However a DSLR has a greater dynamic range for example than a camera phone and better low light capabilities. The type of equipment you use can influence the type of Photography you can do.

 

[MCAsan]

My Olympus E-M1 II can produce a 80MP raw file. The high res file from E-M5 II beat D810
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiTECH2.HTM

Is there a DSLR do 60MP or greater? I think you have to go to medium format for 80MP raw files.

 

[Keirasplace]

I chose a mirrorless because on a 45-mile 7-day backpack trip, every ounce counts - probably because I am one of those seniors. Great High Sierra shots of landscape and family. No doubt there are other cameras that take better pictures, but the size and weight meant this was the one I had with me!

I took my large SLR (not DSLR), lens, filters and tripod to base camp of Everest base camp, Kala Patar, above Gokyo and accross the Chola pass (between the Khumbu valley and the Gokyo valley), that's 3 weeks at high altitude. That doesn't includes a walk-in from Jiri to Namche Bazar (6-7 days). I was almost 40 when I did that in 1999. Planning on doing the same next year with a DSLR this time (maybe with a slightly lighter tripod, the one I had was a beast).

The weight argument always kinda makes me laugh.

 

[Hughmac]

Seems to me, relatively new to both DSLR and mirrorless, that it's more about the craft than the gear. People, including myself, have posted reasonable pictures with iPhones. Maybe not the greatest, but we're all still learning and experimenting.

Believe it was @Hughmac who contrasted the weight of his DSLR kit at 20lb to the same mirrorless kit at 6lb. I chose the Sony A6000 with the 18-105 f4 OSS as a reasonable starting point ($1,000~) to start learning the craft, and given that less weight makes it easier on my 70 year old body I'm likely to keep taking it wherever I go.

BTW I love seeing the constructive commentary and photos every day!

No, sorry, wasn't me. I think the weight difference would be slightly closer for me, but still worthwhile.

Cheers

Hugh

 

[Apple fanboy]

I took my large SLR (not DSLR), lens, filters and tripod to base camp of Everest base camp, Kala Patar, above Gokyo and accross the Chola pass (between the Khumbu valley and the Gokyo valley), that's 3 weeks at high altitude. That doesn't includes a walk-in from Jiri to Namche Bazar (6-7 days). I was almost 40 when I did that in 1999. Planning on doing the same next year with a DSLR this time (maybe with a slightly lighter tripod, the one I had was a beast).

The weight argument always kinda makes me laugh.

Real men don't complain! Love to see some of those photos.