What is the fuss about mirrorless?

[tgara]

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

 

[ApfelKuchen]

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.

In no particular order... Shallow depth of field is a direct function of wide lens aperture and sensor size. There are full frame mirrorless bodies out there, and there will be more to come. You can put a wide aperture, long tele on a mirrorless just as well as you can a DSLR. The glass is the glass, regardless of what kind of box you put behind it. And why, on god's green Astroturf, is a flipping mirror mechanism an advantage to high-fps photography? If you're going to shoot high FPS or video, you have to lock up the mirror! Lock up the mirror and what do you have? A mirrorless.

You really think that professional photographers, out of all the people who populate this world, don't care about appearances? That they're not worried, at least a little, that if they don't look the part to their editors (carrying around the "best" equipment), some other equally talented photographer will get the next assignment? Or that, on a playing field where everyone is wearing a uniform, they would choose to not be instantly recognizable for what they do?

If you're working in a high-pressure, no re-shoots environment, one of the key considerations is familiarity with your tools. If you've been shooting with the same equipment day in and day out for decades, one of the biggest risks is to change your tools. Nobody is saying that mirrorless can deliver better quality than a DSLR. At best, a mirrorless would match the performance of the tools those pros already own. That makes a switch of equipment a big risk with little potential reward. As long as Canon and Nikon keep putting their best sensors and electronics into boxes with flipping mirrors, those pros are going to keep using them.

I'm willing to bet that the key reason pro sports photogs stick with DSLRs is the optical viewfinder, not image quality. Electronic viewfinders, by their very nature, lag. Now, lag is inescapable to every videographer covering sports, but still photographers don't have to live with it. A through-the-lens, zero-parallax OVF is the only unique capability of a DSLR. Everything else is electronics that can be put into any kind of box, or glass that can be attached to any kind of box - image quality can be (and is being) matched.

I don't pretend to be a professional sports photographer. But I do like to sit in the stands at pro tennis matches and shoot for my own enjoyment. If I showed up with one of those whopping big Canon cannons I'd be escorted off premises - non-credentialed professionals are not welcome, and who but a pro would carry one of those things? And the other spectators would not appreciate being whacked on the back of the head. For these purposes, my MFT is great. A 600mm-equivalent f4 tele is inconspicuously small - the size of a compact 300mm on a FF DSLR. As I'm never going to exhibit those shots, all I ask is that they look good on my 27" display, and they do. And I like the eye-level EVF. It has pros and it has cons, but so, as far as I'm concerned, does an OVF. On balance for me, a bit of lag is not a deal killer (you have to anticipate your shots, regardless).

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?

Can you advise what pros at the Super Bowl were shooting with DSLRs? The answer probably would be, "The ones I noticed were." It's not like there were a lot of iso shots of the photographers on the sidelines, or some sort of survey or census results. What you probably noticed were those huge, white Canon lenses (you might not notice what body is attached to those things). A compact, black camera/lens rig blends into the background. At any rate, it's a false argument, because even if they were all shooting DSLR, it's not proof that mirrorless is unsuitable. People who are satisfied with their tools are not looking for the first opportunity to jump ship.

 

[MCAsan]

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

You would be incorrect. There is a huge difference between a definitive answer and saying I have no accurate data. You did not see to process definite numbers either.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Not wanting to add any fuel to the fire, but another tick for the DSLR brigade at an event like the Super Bowl is battery life.
You don't know when something is going to happen so you need to be ready.
But a good photographer will get a good shot whatever they use.
So can we just leave the mirrorless brigade to their technology and the DSLR to theirs?

 

[Hughmac]

Agreed, I think it's time to stop bickering

Cheers

Hugh

 

[darngooddesign]

Two additional benefits of mirrorless are no AF fine tuning and WYSIWYG exposure preview in the EVF.

 

[The Bad Guy]

Agreed, I think it's time to stop bickering

Cheers

Hugh

No no, let them go...it's hilarious.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Im severely confused by this thread; surely the mechanism of the shutter and not having a mirror that slams would mean that Mirrorless by definition would be preferable. In addition live view with the effect of the lens settings is another huge benefit.

Yet somehow the discussion seems to bring in sensor sizes which is irrespective of the shutter mechanism.

Same sensor size mirrorless vs dslr I take mirrorless please

 

[Apple fanboy]

When will it end!

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Im severely confused by this thread; surely the mechanism of the shutter and not having a mirror that slams would mean that Mirrorless by definition would be preferable. In addition live view with the effect of the lens settings is another huge benefit.

Yet somehow the discussion seems to bring in sensor sizes which is irrespective of the shutter mechanism.

Same sensor size mirrorless vs dslr I take mirrorless please

I agree on all your points, but I think the true subtext to this debate isn't objective measurement of technical capability, it's, "But, but... that's what the pros use!"

 

[MCAsan]

You mean the ones who moved to Sony or Fuji?

I have yet to hear of pros who shoot Sony giving up and moving to Canikon.

 

[Hughmac]

My next move is to hit the "Unwatch" button. This thread has run its course

Cheers

Hugh