Any compelling reason to go mirrorless?

<p>Let me first say that my foray into digital has not gone beyond a pocket Lumix. My investments are all in EF lenses on an EOS film camera. First, do EF lenses mount on mirrorless and if so which brand? If they don't, then I am really not interested in amassing a whole bunch of new lenses all over again. If they do, why not get a dslr body at the same price or even cheaper? The advantage of a smaller frame seems to be negated by a large lens anyway.</p>

<p>Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are a tempest in a teapot. They were derived and invented by companies who, for whatever reason, could not compete with DSLRs, to gain market share; they had to invent something "different" to survive. They perform nicely. I have several and all are good image-makers, but they have no advantage other than size over DSLRs, and size falls out the window when folks want to use them with legacy or older lenses. A nice Canon Rebel DSLR or a FF Body like the 5D is undoubtedly your best bet if you have existing EF lenses.</p>

<p>You can use a Canon adapter to use EF lenses on their EOS M mirrorless camera. I'm not sure what you need and what the limitations of using EF lenses on other mirrorless cameras. If you want to go digital and keep using your EF lenses, then getting a Canon DSLR makes the most sense.</p>

<p>They fit via an adapter. If you don't want one, just get an eos dslr. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>but they have no advantage other than size over DSLRs,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>talk about ignorance... </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=290903">Leslie Cheung</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 15, 2013; 10:55 a.m.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>but they have no advantage other than size over DSLRs,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>talk about ignorance...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Talk about useless words. If you have a counterpoint, pipe up, otherwise, shut up and go play with your toys.</p>

<p>like you are worth my time... </p>

<p>Size is, of course, the usually first one stated. However, in my humble opinion, there are a multitude, but it boils down to you as a photographer and an individual system/camera, not a whole genre of cameras vs another genre.</p>

<p>So, size, price, weight are self explanatory.</p>

<p>But then there are other reasons. You may find that you like the way a particular body feels. Such as a more "rangefinderesque" Fuji X-Pro1 or the compact but still well designed (at least to me) Olympus Pen Minis. Or you may find that the features of a particular camera, say the 5-axis IBS of the Olympus O-MD E-M5.</p>

<p>However, I am currently at the state of using my DSLR (Nikon) and a really nice compact (Fuji X-10) and have found this better than buying into a second system. Mind you, I am a bit different in that I am going to medium format film and a TLR for a lot of my shooting. Older manual cameras seem to work better for me...</p>

<p>"like you are worth my time..."<br>

<br>

Perhaps the rest of us are. I would like to be enlightened as to the benefits beyond size. Could you explain?</p>

<p>Right. I keep on coming up with all sorts of reasons (other than size) that mirrorless cameras won't be as useful to me, so I would also like to know the benefits. The only one I can come up with is lack of mirror flap. Again, other than size. Maybe two of us together are worth Leslie's time.</p>

<p>If you cannot find mirrorless benefits over DSLR, perhaps you should itemize and explain DSLR benefits, or advantages, over mirrorless? - this could be easier task.</p>

<p>For me: <br /><br />1) I don't like looking through tiny optical viewfinders if the camera has one. DSLR viewfinders are more pleasant to me. I'm <em>looking through the lens</em>.<br /><br />2) I don't like holding a camera at arm's length to look at an LCD if that's how it works. Yes, Live View composing with a DSLR works this way. But that's usually tripod work.<br /><br />3) I don't like the look, lag, and what-it-does-to-my-night-vision aspects of an electronic viewfinder. So far. Again: I'd rather look at actual photons wandering in through the lens, and finding their way to my eye. In dim surroundings, my eye is already adapted to that level of light. And nobody standing near me or seated in an audience, etc. is going to be annoyed by a glow from the camera.</p>

<p>Size only falls out the window when you want to use a small mirrorless camera with legacy lenses that are big, and maybe Brian's EF lenses are all big. I don't know. My Leica and Voigtlander M lenses are quite small and my Nikon 50 1.8 E and 45 2.8 P are small even though the adapter isn't tiny. A person may not understand the benefit of mirrorless unless for example you have had the pleasure of using Fuji Velvia or Kodachome in a Rollei 35 or any smallish rangefinder camera with a compact normal lens. While some people who don't have any kind of existing camera system might well feel a need to buy a lot of lenses for their new mirrorless camera to make it a complete system, I'd say that for anybody the concept already shows its strength by finding just one or two small lenses you like to use on it. You then can have the imaging quality of the better dslrs on a camera you can take anywhere with no inconvenience at all. I use a Sony 5n with a fixed focal length normal lens on it most the time. Sometimes I take it in the grocery store or instead it fits easily in the small console between the seats so no one will see it and try to steal it. I carry it in my 9x11 small briefcase for business or just leave it around my neck on the plane. It weighs nothing. I easily can fit it in a really small beach bag with a magazine and small water. Sometimes I carry it around all day and don't take a single picture, and it doesn't matter because it was no effort to have it there. Some people find this application is best met with a point and shoot that is even smaller. Sorry, I prefer having the APS size sensor for when I see my shot.</p>

<p>I would also be interested in what Leslie has got to say. I have an EP-3 and the only advantage I have found it has over my 5D2 is size. It isn't even that much quieter, just a little.</p>

<p>I've been using SLR's for so long it is how I work. Like Matt I prefer to look through the lens and I haven't warmed up to live view. The SLR's I like to use don't get in the way of the work which is my definition of a good design. I have nothing against any other format or type but I don't know anyone locally who is using mirrorless and am interested in the attraction. I know Leslie champions the type but have never known why she likes it so well. Mark makes a lot of sense but so far nothing has made me want to go buy one.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Someday, over the rainbow, cameras will have no mechanical parts to wear out or break. This will happen when electronic view finders are really as good as optical ones, and when a decent all-electronic shutter system is developed, among other things.<br /> On the first one, at least, we're close. Not so sure about the shutter issue.</p>

<p>Always assuming that the camera, as such, is not as doomed as was the ice wagon.</p>

<p>Check on compatibility of the automatic features with any particular mirrorless compact, if you go that direction. Being <em>able</em> to use a lens is by no means the same as being able to <em>conveniently</em> use a lens.</p>

<p>Besides size:<br>

1. Video. Panasonic in particular produces wonderful videos, making these cameras ideal for people who like to shoot both still and videos using the same tool. While Nikon, for example, can also shoot videos in live view, its AF is sluggish, compared to those from Pan and Oly.<br>

2. Face-detection. While mirrorless is not the best option for general AF tracking, its face-detection works wonder when your subject of interest is people, e.g., kids.<br>

3. IBIS, although this applies to Olympus only.<br>

4. Because these cameras are so small and light, using the rear LCD to compose is easy, and you do not have to press your nose against the camera body of your DSLR.<br>

5. I now much prefer EVF vs OV. The former can show all the shooting parameters, histogram, boost sensitivity in the dark, horizon, grid, and even pre-view a shot.<br>

6. Finally the size differential cannot be underestimated since you are more likely to carry a small and light camera wherever you go (e. g., Olympus E-PL5 + a pancake prime), unlikly so if your camera does not fit in your pocket.</p>

<ul>

<li>in camera filters</li>

<li>in camera panorama</li>

<li>in camera HDR</li>

<li>in camera multiple exposures</li>

<li>face focus</li>

<li>touch/smile shutter</li>

<li>Accurate auto focus (no micro AF adjustment needed, ever)</li>

<li>Video (much) faster AF speed</li>

<li>Metabone Speedbooster</li>

<li>Focus peaking (Nex, Ricoh)</li>

<li>IBIS (Pen)</li>

<li>AF speed (Nikon 1, newer m4/3rd, RX100)</li>

<li>adapting decades of legacy lenses</li>

<li>macro (p&s, for instance, 1cm working distance)</li>

<li>LCD multi-angle viewing</li>

<li>EVF WYSIWYG viewing</li>

<li>Livetime (OMD)</li>

<li>Playmemories (Sony)</li>

<li>Video mode manual control (GH3/2)</li>

</ul>

<div></div>

<p>I wrote a longer article on <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2012/12/mirrorless-technology.html">what makes MILCs the next step in camera technology</a>. One thing really: real-time image processing. The smaller size is just a minor aspect that anyone could notice, so marketing focused on it. DSLRs have been transitioning to this technology for some years now with the introduction of LiveView and movie features. Even Leica got the idea. The next step will be to drop the SLR mirror/rangefinder - their only purpose was to enable framing and focusing and these can both be done easier with an EVF/LCD. Some people may not like it, just like some people didn't like digital vs film, but technology moves on nevertheless.</p>

<p>Right Mark. As someone with a large quiver of small, excellent legacy prime lenses, from LTM RF's, Contax G RF to Olympus Pen F, the compactness and lightweight of the Sony 5n is hard to beat in an APS-C size camera. That alone is a big deal for me. Having Focus Peaking is a godsend to my older eyes. If we forget for a moment the superb Sony sensor, which is clearly better (to my eye) than my far more expensive, heavier, bulkier Canon 7D, those qualities alone are worth the price of admission. Shutter lag? None I can detect. Articulating screen? Yep. Instant Sweep Pano's? No problem. The 7D cost me $1700, the 5n $600.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't like holding a camera at arm's length to look at an LCD if that's how it works. Yes, Live View composing with a DSLR works this way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I honestly don't understand this unless you are far-sighted and forgot your glasses. I've never worked this way with any camera mirrorless or DSLR with live view. Do people using DSLR live view really hold the camera out a arms length? Why would you do that? When working with live view on a tripod do you stand three feet back?<br>

In any case, the Sony's have good EVF's. The 5n EVF also articulates straight up! Shooting low is a dream and easy on the back. </p>

<p>It's understandable that folks have differing personal and ergonomic preferences but the bang-for-the-buck for the features and quality provided by the 5n is very high <em>for me</em>. In the end, due to it's qualities, <strong>it's a camera I'll actually carry</strong>, which is worth more than just about anything else. I haven't tried the new Canon tiny Rebel's. At least Canon is getting the message, after losing ton's of market share, that not everyone wants big, heavy, bulbous cameras. Those may be worth a look from me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I honestly don't understand this unless you are far-sighted and forgot your glasses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I should have been more specific. Holding the camera away from your face <em>at all</em> means losing one of the three points that stabilizes it (your head). Has nothing to do with eyesight, but with not wanting it wobbling around during long exposures.</p>

<p>*looks at TLR* So? And I have never really pressed my eye into any SLR. 99% of my bracing comes from the arms. And this includes tack sharp almost 1 minute exposures on ISO 100 Velvia handheld at night in Chicago using a 50mm f1.8 (not sure aperture used) and Minolta X-GM (I think that's the right designation).</p>

<p>[[Do people using DSLR live view really hold the camera out a arms length?]]</p>

<p>Just travel to a local tourist location like the zoo or a major park. I see a ton of consumers with new DSLR's using them in live view just like they used their point and shoots. Yes, some are also using the optical viewfinders, but many are not. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>It looks weenie.<br>

Models think you are a GWC who got his camera at Walmart.</p>

<p>It sounds silly.</p>

<p>You look like an idiot in cargo pants, a bush hat and Domke Photogs vest carrying an instamatic.</p>

<p>With an 80-200 F2.8 it looks like your camera fell off.</p>

<p>If you try to use it in public policemen tell you to go away.</p>

<p>After years of study and experience in photography I am almost always able to identify a face.</p>

<p>In-Camera HDR looks just as foolish as out of camera HDR. </p>

<p>I don't need automatic panorama. I don't need panorama at all. Panorama is an excuse for shooting something uninteresting.</p>

<p>Smile shutter technology is just wrong at an accident scene.</p>

<p>Photoshop autocorrect autocorrects in-camera filters.</p>

<p>I don't know what Metabone Speedbooster is but it sounds like it might hurt someone my age.</p>

<p>Its to big for your pocket and I refuse to carry a purse. (And don't tell me its a messenger bag.)</p>

<p>If I tried to use one it would be my last rodeo. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>means losing one of the three points that stabilizes it (your head).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The weight of the gears is a key factor here: Since most mirrorless systems are so light, this rule does not apply. You just need to find a new way to stabilize the system, that is all. What we usually do is to tug your elbows in to reduce camera shake. This is very easy with most mirrorless cameras that weigh about a deck of cards, plus they either have IBIS or Lens-based IS. Camera shake is really a no issue for the most part. If you must use your head to stabilize it, most mirror-less camera either have an EVF built in or can use one as an accessary. I have both a GH1 and E-PL5. I much prefer to frame the shot with the articulated rear LCD than the EVF (which GH1 has). The articulated screen is such a wonderful tool to us to frame the shot, and I do not have to worry about squishing my nose and glasses against the camera. </p>

<p>Clearly for pro who are used to and do not mind at all carry their heavy systems, there is no good reason to switch to the mirror less, which costs more to set up, compared to most APS-C systems. However for the great majority who use the camera for fun, having a lighter and smaller camera system that can produce DSLR-like images is very thing.</p>