What is the fuss about mirrorless?

[HBOC]

i hadn't really considered going mirrorless until i came back from my second trip into the Wind Rivers last summer. 35+ miles with all my normal backpacking stuff + a bear vault and my D600 + 14-24 was cumbersome.

The fact that you can charge the A7 series batteries via USB is fantastic, and the foot print of the camera is smaller than my D600. IQ is the same, as it is essentially the same sensor.

My issue is i cannot bring myself to compromise in image quality. there is no lightweight replacement for the 14-24, and no wi have picked up the fantastic older 80-200mm 2.8 that is even heavier. As the backpacking season draws closer and i am planning trips, i am looking more and more on how to cut some weight from my pack. My total pack weight was 34lbs when i left. Not a ton, but about 8lbs more than is enjoyable for me to trek - especially at 11K feet

 

[Apple fanboy]

i hadn't really considered going mirrorless until i came back from my second trip into the Wind Rivers last summer. 35+ miles with all my normal backpacking stuff + a bear vault and my D600 + 14-24 was cumbersome.

The fact that you can charge the A7 series batteries via USB is fantastic, and the foot print of the camera is smaller than my D600. IQ is the same, as it is essentially the same sensor.

My issue is i cannot bring myself to compromise in image quality. there is no lightweight replacement for the 14-24, and no wi have picked up the fantastic older 80-200mm 2.8 that is even heavier. As the backpacking season draws closer and i am planning trips, i am looking more and more on how to cut some weight from my pack. My total pack weight was 34lbs when i left. Not a ton, but about 8lbs more than is enjoyable for me to trek - especially at 11K feet

Good glass isn't light. Whatever the body. Nikon's 14-24mm is one of the best pieces of glass out there for landscapes.

 

[phrehdd]

Craft and gear. - This ain't the film days where a simple camera, with FILM and a decent lens tests the photographer's skill. In the digital world both matter. Gear is not just hardware but software and even firmware. One need not the best gear but decent gear for various types of image work. I would not consider the iPhone a great choice for shooting football games nor indoor basketball. - It simply is the wrong tool or a tool with too little to offer.

Jumbling terms - mirrorless and dSLR these days do not reflect sensor size. For some reason we still think of dSLR as being the best because some models are "full frame." Well lets get this straight - Sony has a FF mirrorless camera, both Fuji and Hasselblad have "medium format" mirrorless and so on. Many crop sensors approach the quality of a similarly spec by pixel number FF so that argument is now a bit muddy and will be even more so over the next couple of years.

 

[Keirasplace]

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

These are from Gokyo and Gokyo-Ri
(the valley with Cho-Oyu at the end (next valley to the Khumbu).
Had a polarizer on (you see it from the blue tint in the corner.
I was scanned 15 years ago so the quality of the scan is not top shelf; supposed to rescan the negatives this year.

First two photos were taken at 5400 meters in altitude, 17700 feet from Gokyo-Ri (a small mountain off the glacial valley that comes off Cho-Oyu, not visible on these photos, but visible on third photo taken on the valley floor).

First one is looking towards the Everest Massif (there was very little snow and clear conditions that year so Everest's rock features were unusually distinct). You got Lhotse in the back right and Nupse is the white spur in the middle. You See Part of Pumori on the left.

Second one is looking down the valley. You see the main glacier that comes off Cho-Oyu (not visible as it is behind) covered with rubble on the left. The mountain just in front is a "minor" one I think is about 6200 meters (would need to look at the map to be sure).

This is looking up the same valley, 4900 meters, at the level of the lakes in the previous photo, with Cho-Oyu (about 8000 meters) at the end.

I recommend this trip 100 times, best one I ever took.
Don't go with too large a group though, mine was kinda self organized 1 guide (lived in Kathmandu), 1 porter (lived in Lukla) and 5 people including me. Some groups are much larger.

 

[MCAsan]

Mirrorless bodies around around 50% of the top cameras.

https://www.dxomark.com/best-cameras-under-59200-dollars

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Craft and gear. - This ain't the film days where a simple camera, with FILM and a decent lens tests the photographer's skill. In the digital world both matter. Gear is not just hardware but software and even firmware. One need not the best gear but decent gear for various types of image work. I would not consider the iPhone a great choice for shooting football games nor indoor basketball. - It simply is the wrong tool or a tool with too little to offer.

Jumbling terms - mirrorless and dSLR these days do not reflect sensor size. For some reason we still think of dSLR as being the best because some models are "full frame." Well lets get this straight - Sony has a FF mirrorless camera, both Fuji and Hasselblad have "medium format" mirrorless and so on. Many crop sensors approach the quality of a similarly spec by pixel number FF so that argument is now a bit muddy and will be even more so over the next couple of years.

Well put. I love my A6000 kit with a 10-18, 16-70, and 35 1.8. A very light weight kit. I also have a LX100 for the ultra light travel needs.

 

[Apple fanboy]

These are from Gokyo and Gokyo-Ri
(the valley with Cho-Oyu at the end (next valley to the Khumbu).
Had a polarizer on (you see it from the blue tint in the corner.
I was scanned 15 years ago so the quality of the scan is not top shelf; supposed to rescan the negatives this year.

First two photos were taken at 5400 meters in altitude, 17700 feet from Gokyo-Ri (a small mountain off the glacial valley that comes off Cho-Oyu, not visible on these photos, but visible on third photo taken on the valley floor).

First one is looking towards the Everest Massif (there was very little snow and clear conditions that year so Everest's rock features were unusually distinct). You got Lhotse in the back right and Nupse is the white spur in the middle. You See Part of Pumori on the left.



View attachment 684380

Second one is looking down the valley. You see the main glacier that comes off Cho-Oyu (not visible as it is behind) covered with rubble on the left. The mountain just in front is a "minor" one I think is about 6200 meters (would need to look at the map to be sure).

View attachment 684370


This is looking up the same valley, 4900 meters, at the level of the lakes in the previous photo, with Cho-Oyu (about 8000 meters) at the end.

View attachment 684381

I recommend this trip 100 times, best one I ever took.
Don't go with too large a group though, mine was kinda self organized 1 guide (lived in Kathmandu), 1 porter (lived in Lukla) and 5 people including me. Some groups are much larger.

Can't imagine I'd ever get to go tbh.
But lovely images. Thanks for sharing.
[doublepost=1484851773][/doublepost]

Mirrorless bodies around around 50% of the top cameras.

https://www.dxomark.com/best-cameras-under-59200-dollars

Talking to a pro today who sold all his Cannon gear and went Fuji
He's not in the best of health so he's not able to deal with a DSLR now.
That said he was bemoaning the softness compared to his L glass.

 

[Mark0]

Can't imagine I'd ever get to go tbh.
But lovely images. Thanks for sharing.
[doublepost=1484851773][/doublepost]
Talking to a pro today who sold all his Cannon gear and went Fuji
He's not in the best of health so he's not able to deal with a DSLR now.
That said he was bemoaning the softness compared to his L glass.

I'm surprised because the Fuji lenses I have (16-55 2.8 and 50-140 2.8) are outstanding. They certainly match, if not better the L's I've used. As per though, it can be subjective how folk perceive "sharpness".

 

[Apple fanboy]

I'm surprised because the Fuji lenses I have (16-55 2.8 and 50-140 2.8) are outstanding. They certainly match, if not better the L's I've used. As per though, it can be subjective how folk perceive "sharpness".

He's a regular judge at a lot of Photography competitions.
He's speaking to them to see if there is an issue with his body.

 

[phrehdd]

I'm surprised because the Fuji lenses I have (16-55 2.8 and 50-140 2.8) are outstanding. They certainly match, if not better the L's I've used. As per though, it can be subjective how folk perceive "sharpness".

A really important notion - perception. Your remark about perceived sharpness is spot on. There are all sorts of methods to make an image appear sharper than what we associate with the "sharpness" tools in software. Items such as contrast, edge adjacency enhancement, adding selective saturation or luminescence etc.

I like to start with the hardware - I find lenses with good resolving power, well corrected (for several typical challenges) and then find the best aperture range for max resolution of that particular lens then the light sensitivity range of the given camera (some cameras do best at certain ISO ranges). What is left after this is ME and what I* see and shoot or simply put, all the technical/hardware become known quantities and all artistic results remain the variables because they are dependent on me alone.

 

[Mark0]

He's a regular judge at a lot of Photography competitions.
He's speaking to them to see if there is an issue with his body.

I don't doubt he knows what he's talking about, as he's evidently have been a professional for a long time using a system he knows absolutely inside out.
Please understand that I'm not trying to disprove what he's found, as I have used a fair amount of L's and found them to be fantastic and that includes some of the 'lesser' L's that had obvious QC issues and poor correction / distortion.

I'm just saying that I'm surprised because the two Fuji red badge XF lenses I use are outstanding and were a big reason in my decision to switch. The sharpness may be helped due to the absence of the low pass filter on the camera bodies that use the X-Trans colour array. I find the two lenses I use are in a similar vein to the famed red stripe of the L's as being the pinnacle of the brand. I do however, realise there are a few QC control issues with lenses with 'bad copies' floating around. It is surprising to me given the consistent high standard of production Fuji have given to their lenses over the years - their lens heritage is well documented.

A really important notion - perception. Your remark about perceived sharpness is spot on. There are all sorts of methods to make an image appear sharper than what we associate with the "sharpness" tools in software. Items such as contrast, edge adjacency enhancement, adding selective saturation or luminescence etc.

I like to start with the hardware - I find lenses with good resolving power, well corrected (for several typical challenges) and then find the best aperture range for max resolution of that particular lens then the light sensitivity range of the given camera (some cameras do best at certain ISO ranges). What is left after this is ME and what I* see and shoot or simply put, all the technical/hardware become known quantities and all artistic results remain the variables because they are dependent on me alone.

A very sensible post that makes good points.

 

[kenoh]

These are from Gokyo and Gokyo-Ri
(the valley with Cho-Oyu at the end (next valley to the Khumbu).
Had a polarizer on (you see it from the blue tint in the corner.
I was scanned 15 years ago so the quality of the scan is not top shelf; supposed to rescan the negatives this year.

First two photos were taken at 5400 meters in altitude, 17700 feet from Gokyo-Ri (a small mountain off the glacial valley that comes off Cho-Oyu, not visible on these photos, but visible on third photo taken on the valley floor).

First one is looking towards the Everest Massif (there was very little snow and clear conditions that year so Everest's rock features were unusually distinct). You got Lhotse in the back right and Nupse is the white spur in the middle. You See Part of Pumori on the left.



View attachment 684380

Second one is looking down the valley. You see the main glacier that comes off Cho-Oyu (not visible as it is behind) covered with rubble on the left. The mountain just in front is a "minor" one I think is about 6200 meters (would need to look at the map to be sure).

View attachment 684370


This is looking up the same valley, 4900 meters, at the level of the lakes in the previous photo, with Cho-Oyu (about 8000 meters) at the end.

View attachment 684381

I recommend this trip 100 times, best one I ever took.
Don't go with too large a group though, mine was kinda self organized 1 guide (lived in Kathmandu), 1 porter (lived in Lukla) and 5 people including me. Some groups are much larger.

A group of my friends did a trek in the Himalayas every three years or so for about 15 years. It was the reunion trip of the group of us who worked together on a select few projects at work.

Every time I was either too broke or otherwise tied up and couldn't go. Now our boss from back then - my mentor and good friend - is no longer with us and so I have missed out on the joy of an adventure with him. If only I had re-prioritised some things and done it at least once! One day I will go up there and I will place a prayer flag for him in his memory..

Beautiful images though, a little soft. Have they been mangled by the forum engine? or have they lost detail in the down scaling? This is a landscape that is unique to that one place in the world right? Nothing compares to it - IMHO... yes there are other mountain ranges but this one is a bit special. One day.... one day...

I would seriously consider a Pen-F as a compact option to carry with me but just when I decide I am up for getting into the M43 camp, I see something that puts me off. So for now I will stick to the Ms and Sony A7Rii which are phenomenal machines vastly over spec'ed for my capabilities.

 

[Keirasplace]

A group of my friends did a trek in the Himalayas every three years or so for about 15 years. It was the reunion trip of the group of us who worked together on a select few projects at work.

Every time I was either too broke or otherwise tied up and couldn't go. Now our boss from back then - my mentor and good friend - is no longer with us and so I have missed out on the joy of an adventure with him. If only I had re-prioritised some things and done it at least once! One day I will go up there and I will place a prayer flag for him in his memory..

Beautiful images though, a little soft. Have they been mangled by the forum engine? or have they lost detail in the down scaling? This is a landscape that is unique to that one place in the world right? Nothing compares to it - IMHO... yes there are other mountain ranges but this one is a bit special. One day.... one day...

I would seriously consider a Pen-F as a compact option to carry with me but just when I decide I am up for getting into the M43 camp, I see something that puts me off. So for now I will stick to the Ms and Sony A7Rii which are phenomenal machines vastly over spec'ed for my capabilities.

Yeah, mangled in several ways, old scan with lower resolution scanner, reduced resolution than even those original scans, and in the case of the first one especially, a high altitude haze (I think it's ice cristals, your taking a picture of something at nearly 9000 meters) between me and Everest (which was about 12 miles away). Anyway, supposed to rescan the negatives this year, will see how I can make them come out. I didn't have the top end equipment when I took those things, versatility as important since I'd be carrying these things all day long litterally in my hand with the strap around my wrist; my lens was a 28-105 Canon EF (or something like that, don't have it anymore).

 

[aerok]

I made a full switch form Nikon system to Fujifilm, even going from full frame to APS-C.

Not regrets there, the ISO performance is very similar, lenses are cheaper and much smaller. Full frame DSLRs are overrated unless you're into sports or wildlife shooting.
[doublepost=1485110280][/doublepost]

Can't imagine I'd ever get to go tbh.
But lovely images. Thanks for sharing.
[doublepost=1484851773][/doublepost]
Talking to a pro today who sold all his Cannon gear and went Fuji
He's not in the best of health so he's not able to deal with a DSLR now.
That said he was bemoaning the softness compared to his L glass.

I find sharpness to be overrated anyhow. People are obsessed with zooming in at 1000% to drool at the sharpness of their lens. I only shoot prime, compare the Fujifilm 35mm f1.4 vs the Canon 50mm f1.2 and there is no challenge there, the 50mm is softer than a newborn butt cheeks at f1.4

Then again, like I said, I usually don't worry too much at sharpness.

 

[phrehdd]

I find sharpness to be overrated anyhow. People are obsessed with zooming in at 1000% to drool at the sharpness of their lens. I only shoot prime, compare the Fujifilm 35mm f1.4 vs the Canon 50mm f1.2 and there is no challenge there, the 50mm is softer than a newborn butt cheeks at f1.4

Then again, like I said, I usually don't worry too much at sharpness.

Canon's "L" glass is very well known as is Nikon's top glass with rare earth elements etc. In the end you can put all these lenses on "the bench" and check for the usual three forms of aberration and of course a proper test of resolving power over the range of f stops. If this wee film, the difference of resolving power might be more noticed but with digital the post processing abilities can do extraordinary things in comparison to the film to print. For many people, some of the crop sensor lenses are far more than they need. They are not making really large prints, nor looking at medium size prints at 6" viewing distance. I'll give one comment on Fuji other than having a few lenses that are in their class outstanding - the new "medium" format camera comes with lenses that are meant to be used with cameras (not yet existing) that have 100 megapixels. This type of planning ahead is one of the things I enjoy about Fuji (as the present release is a 50 megapixel model).

 

[crabtreemunchkin]

Mirrorless cameras are lighter, smaller footprint which makes it easier to blend in, improved autofocus for great coverage and more flexibility... the technological gap between mirrorless & DSLR is getting narrower... basically for all these reasons (plus many others) is why there's such hype around mirrorless... it'll be interesting to see what happens in the next few years

 

[Altis]

I can't imagine I'll go back to DSLR. I've been shooting mirrorless since around 2012 and haven't looked back.

If money were no object, a Sony A7RII would be my camera body of choice. Such an incredible sensor, IBS, nice viewfinder.

 

[tgara]

Not regrets there, the ISO performance is very similar, lenses are cheaper and much smaller. Full frame DSLRs are overrated unless you're into sports or wildlife shooting.

Well, as you alluded to, it depends what you're shooting. Pick the right tool for the job. For example, I didn't see any mirrorless cameras on the sidelines at Super Bowl LI. Mostly saw Canon 1DX Mark IIs with big white lenses.

 

[MCAsan]

And they are shooting jpg images for the editors on the other end of the wire services. Like they all use Photo Mechanic to import the images and quickly put in the names for all the players...etc. Very much a photo journalism application.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Well, as you alluded to, it depends what you're shooting. Pick the right tool for the job. For example, I didn't see any mirrorless cameras on the sidelines at Super Bowl LI. Mostly saw Canon 1DX Mark IIs with big white lenses.

Yeah, but part of this is that a) those photographers were fully invested in that very costly equipment long before mirrorless became a practical alternative, and b) they need to look the part. There's nothing to stop them from attaching a mirrorless body to those huge lenses.

There's no doubt that, all other things being equal, a full-frame sensor will always produce better results than a smaller sensor. But there was a time when no self-respecting news photographer (even those covering sports) would carry anything but a 4x5 press camera. Long telephotos for those things were impractical, but extreme enlargement produced satisfactory results (especially when the end product was a coarse, half-tone screen).

 

[tgara]

Yeah, but part of this is that a) those photographers were fully invested in that very costly equipment long before mirrorless became a practical alternative, and b) they need to look the part. There's nothing to stop them from attaching a mirrorless body to those huge lenses.

There's no doubt that, all other things being equal, a full-frame sensor will always produce better results than a smaller sensor. But there was a time when no self-respecting news photographer (even those covering sports) would carry anything but a 4x5 press camera. Long telephotos for those things were impractical, but extreme enlargement produced satisfactory results (especially when the end product was a coarse, half-tone screen).

Sorry, your explanations make no sense. As for being invested in costly equipment, that might be true. But those photographers are there to get the best pictures. If a mirrorless camera would help them do that, they'd get one, irrespective of what other gear they already own. As for "looking the part", that's just silly. Professional photographers covering the Super Bowl and other high profile sporting events want the best shots, period. That's how they get paid and build a reputation. They don't care what they or the gear look like.

The name of the game (no pun intended) in professional sports photography is high fps, long focal length, and shallow depth of field, particularly with fast moving games like football, basketball, soccer, track, auto racing, etc. Mirrorless simply do not offer these advantages, at least not today. For example, DSLRs shoot at about double the fps than mirrorless, and that's a big reason why you don't find them being used by professionals at these events.

 

[MCAsan]

The name of the game (no pun intended) in professional sports photography is high fps, long focal length, and shallow depth of field, particularly with fast moving games like football, basketball, soccer, track, auto racing, etc. Mirrorless simply do not offer these advantages, at least not today.

Here are the specs for my E-M1 II:
Up to 15 fps (S-AF), 10 fps (C-AF) Mechanical Shutter
Up to 60 fps (S-AF), 18 fps (C-AF) Silent Electronic Shutter

Please advise which DSLR does those frame rates.

 

[phrehdd]

Sorry, your explanations make no sense. As for being invested in costly equipment, that might be true. But those photographers are there to get the best pictures. If a mirrorless camera would help them do that, they'd get one, irrespective of what other gear they already own. As for "looking the part", that's just silly. Professional photographers covering the Super Bowl and other high profile sporting events want the best shots, period. That's how they get paid and build a reputation. They don't care what they or the gear look like.

The name of the game (no pun intended) in professional sports photography is high fps, long focal length, and shallow depth of field, particularly with fast moving games like football, basketball, soccer, track, auto racing, etc. Mirrorless simply do not offer these advantages, at least not today. For example, DSLRs shoot at about double the fps than mirrorless, and that's a big reason why you don't find them being used by professionals at these events.

Name of the game was getting the shot- period. Shallow DOF was nothing more than a product of photographers having to shoot wide open (or near) in order to get enough light to expose the image. It just happened to work in favour of the particular subject matter. I recall some excellent work being done in film days with some catadioptic lenses even with their trademark doughnut specular highlights. Those lenses were moderate speed, very short and light and while full of compromises, they could in the right hand deliver the shots wanted and do it with ease.

 

[tgara]

Here are the specs for my E-M1 II:
Up to 15 fps (S-AF), 10 fps (C-AF) Mechanical Shutter
Up to 60 fps (S-AF), 18 fps (C-AF) Silent Electronic Shutter

Please advise which DSLR does those frame rates.

It's not just the frame rates. As I indicated, it's the entire package. But to your point, please advise which pros at the Super Bowl were shooting with mirrorless cameras. I'm not aware of any, are you?

 

[MCAsan]

It's not just the frame rates. As I indicated, it's the entire package. But to your point, please advise which pros at the Super Bowl were shooting with mirrorless cameras. I'm not aware of any, are you?

So I gather your answer to my question is "none".

Watching a Super Bowl I have far better things to do that analyze who is there from the Press shooting which bodies via which brand of lenses. So many of the lenses for such events are rentals.

So what was your count of which model of Nikon and Canon bodies were in use? Did you do a survey in the Pressroom before or after the game?