How Good Are They?

<p>Hi Folks,</p>

<p>I'm a Canon DSLR shooter and my 7D is getting kinda old so I'm thinking about upgrading and wondering if a jump to mirrorless would be a good idea. I travel a lot and the smaller body and lenses would be very nice. I admit that I haven't been paying attention to advances in the mirrorless world, so how good is the IQ on them now? Has is met or exceeded that of a good DSLR? And how well do they handle low light? It seems I'm always trying to shoot in the dark for some reason.</p>

<p>Many thanks.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br />Dave</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Things depend. - I'm sure Sony Alpha & Leica are competitive in the IQ field.<br>

The low light flower pot might go to Sony too.<br>

Mirrorless issues are subject tracking AF, low light AF performance, AF speed, sometimes VF lag that makes shooting them harder. - My outdated Fujis seem pretty poor in these fields and my old(!) Pentax DSLRs still beat them. - I read later Fuji bodies improved. Paired with Fujis better lenses I'd rate IQ quite high, its just so hard to nail anything with what I have.<br>

IDK which system you are looking into. MFT gear might be equal in low light to what you have if you get the insanely fastest primes for it and benefit from IBIS. - I haven't tried it yet. Sony might have the IBIS advantage too and comes in APS & FF. - Samsung apparently had the best APS sensor but ceased photo business. Fuji are only offering stabilized zooms. Their sensors were good but are getting long in the tooth by now.<br>

My own Leica kit isn't up to date and I am waiting for their latest tech achievements to hit my system.</p>

<p>The mirrorless has many advantages over the DSLR. The short coming is in AF speed and power consumption but unless your are seeking for the best there aren't that much differences. The main different is the viewfinder. If you find yourself using liveview often on your DSLR then the mirrorless is definitely a good thing. The mirrorless doesn't have a reflex viewfinder so if this is what you want then you have to get the SLR. </p>

<p>Since about a year I use an EOS-M, sensor is similar to the 7D. Image quality is no issue, handling through the touch screen is great although it does have a few quirks. And: I use it in addition to a DSLR. <br>

If you can wait a few weeks or months: Rumour has it that "<em>Canon will “surprise a lot of people” with one of their next mirrorless camera</em>". Let's assume that Canon is going to get serious with mirrorless in 2016. </p>

Mirrorless is perfect for travel. It reduces size and weight compared to a DSLR while giving you the same image quality.

The disadvantages - which are common to all mirrorless systems - are slow AF with less capable subject tracking than a

good DSLR AF system and somewhat worse low light lock on rate, and they go through batteries more quickly than a

DSLR

I have both a d810 and an A7r. What others have said is

true, my A7r does not hold up when it comes to AF and

power consumption. Since I do a lot of landscapes and

mainly use MF it is not a huge issue for me. The power

consumption is a legitimate concern, but I carry a large

number of spare batteries with me when I use the A7r.

Ad far as IQ, the quality from mirrorless is just as good.

<p>Take a look at the Fujifilm X mirrorless cameras. The IQ is very high.</p>

<p>http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/</p>

<p> </p>

Hi Dave.

As a former longtime DSLR user (Nikon, Pentax) turned mirrorless last year, I can say the following: IMHO, the image quality (in good

light-natural or artificial), my Fujifilm X-system gets better image quality than my previous DSLR kits! Now, obviously the answer to your

question can only be based on one's personal experience in each system combined with one's shooting style, technique, and image

quality expectations. For travel, mirrorless systems are superior in terms of weight reduction, size, and overall portability. But as a

landscape and small product stock photographer, I have found that the overall build quality, robustness (weather sealing) and most

importantly (to me), image quality, the Fujifilm XT-1, and superb Fujinon XF lenses, meet my needs. And unless print wall-size, the 16

megapixel X-Trans sensor of the XT-1 is quite capable of stunningly sharp and detailed poster prints to approximately 30x40 inches.

(Plus, I'm reading about Fujifilm's new X-Pro 2, with a new 24 megapixel sensor and processing engine, that, when combined with

Fujinon's exemplary lenses, should raise the bar even more. I'm pretty sure that the differences in AF speed, and low-light performance

between DSLR's and mirrorless are becoming a non-issue for everyone except maybe sports shooters! One more piece of advice: I

would take your 7D to a store that stocks mirrorless systems, compare ergonomics, and shoot the same subject with your 7D and a

mirrorless camera with equivalent lens, and process the images side-by-side at home. I bet the image quality differences will surprise

you!

Samples of my Fujifilm mirrorless system photography can be seen on my site, which can't be posted here. If you have specific questions about that system, please feel free to contact me. Thanks, and best of luck in your decision!<div></div>

<p>I think mirrorless cameras may have a further advantage in the low light situations dSLRs do (if you have sunlight you can use a point-and-shoot just fine) by nature of being smaller and easier to take with you indoors. Tiny primes are actually a viable lens category on these since you can shove it in a pocket.</p>

<p>I have been using M43 for over two years now and never missed a shot because of AF 'alleged slowness' :-) I am sure it is slower in tests but in real life hardly.</p>

<p>EVF lag in the original Sony A7 cameras has been nearly eliminated in the mod 2 versions. It is on the order of 13 msec. AF speed is comparable to that of my Nikon D3. Since the AF detectors are embedded in the sensor, not separate like in a DSLR, there are no calibration or fine-tuning issues. The sensors cover about 80% of the image area, whereas those in a Nikon barely cover half the frame.</p>

<p>There are a wide range of lenses by Sony, Zeiss or a collaboration of the two which have world-class image quality - Leica quality at 1/3rd the price. It is not easy to render a 42 MP image pixel-sharp, wide open, from corner to corner, but many of these lenses do just that. I can use my Nikon lenses on the Sony, but they're twice as large as necessary, and the image quality suffers.</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone! That was exactly what I needed to know. It sounds like mirrorless is good now and the wave of the future too. Cheers.</p>

<p>I have used several Sony mirrorless. I got the a7R and was never really happy with it, but the a7RII is an excellent camera with outstanding IQ. If you try the a7RII make sure you turn off the RAW compression. Yes the files get huge (80MB), but the dynamic range is quite remarkable.<br>

BUT, before making the investment in body and lens, I would encourage you to rent the body and a few lens and do a test drive.<br>

When I travel, I only go with my Sony's now.</p>

<p>It depends on each person, but I dont think the mirrorless has any advantage over the DSLR. Yes, many times, I'd prefer a smaller and lighter camera, but for smaller size and lighter weight, I would choose a single lens (non-removable) leaf shutter like the Canon G1x. Of course for smaller and lighter, you must sacrifice something, and I'm willing to sacrifice interchangebility and also gain by the leaf shutter, high sync speed<br>

One thing I dont accept to sacrifice is the ease of control but the mirrorless cameras often sacrifice this<br>

I dont care much about AF speed but I do miss manual focusing terribly but both the compact (p&s) like G1x and the mirrorless have big problem with this. For now I have to accept it but I wish someday I would have a compact and accurate manual focusing system (which is easy to build) by scales. I dont worry about power consumption because I can carry many batteries. <br>

I dont need the liveview because in fact I consider it as "deadview" (i. e. it does not show the view of what I am trying to capture but instead showing a coarse view of what the camera has just captured by the current settings of the camera), but I really love the flexible view by an articulated LCD.<br>

In summary, I'd prefer a DSLR just because of the "mirror" which is indispensable to me now and for a very very long time in the future. But for smaller, lighter and simpler, I'd also sacrifice interchangebility and AF speed right away. Other things (like IQ, FF or not, prices, lenses,... ) are important but it does not depend on DSLR or mirrorless, it mainly depends on how much you are willing to pay and when and who are willing to build them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> how good is the IQ on them now? Has is met or exceeded that of a good DSLR? And how well do they handle low light?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>at this point, IQ is equal or better to DSLR. low-light? depends. a m4/3 body will be far below a full-frame A7 body for low-light. of course you also have to look at lenses. a f/4 zoom will give back some of those stops quickly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I dont think the mirrorless has any advantage over the DSLR. Yes, many times, I'd prefer a smaller and lighter camera, but for smaller size and lighter weight, I would choose a single lens (non-removable) leaf shutter like the Canon G1x.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually not true. Mirrorless has some things it does better, like AF accuracy due to on-chip AF modules, and wider array of AF points. Some people like the WYSIWYG readout in the EVF display, but then EVF's arent great for continuous shooting. G1X is an interesting camera, could have been a classic but Canon sabotaged the AF so as not to cannibalize their DSLR line. bad choice, Canon.<br>

<br>

To the OP, there are many different types of mirrorless cameras, so can't just lump them all into a box. The best of them rival DSLRs for performance, albeit not across all performance parameters... Some ML cams might be more technically advanced than DSLRs in some aspects, but i think you need to think about how you will be using the camera. if you're not shooting sports/action/things which require the best AF and AF-C performance, then mirrorless cameras can do the job. But since each camera is different, we can't say there's equivalent performance across the entire ML field. So you kinda have to know what features you want. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some people like the WYSIWYG readout in the EVF display</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, do your eyes get tired when you look into an EVF during long periods of time? <br />In dim conditions - are EVF noisy? <br />I suggest that Dave try Fujifilm X-T1 or X-T10 if he feels good with their EVF's. If he makes big prints - maybe Sony A7R and Zeiss primes. <br />He may not splurge and get Canon EOS 100D and keep his Canon lenses and be happy. </p>

<p>Maybe it's just me, but a EOS 7D isn't that old a body - and one that has still a pretty impressive AF unit in there and isn't terribly weak at higher ISOs (maybe not best, but perfectly usable, I think). I assume you have some nice Canon lenses to go with it too. Consider those too part of the question how good the mirrorless systems are. So, I'd take one step back - "the body getting old" - what isn't it doing? What is the problem you try to solve? Is a different camera <em>system</em> going to tackle that issue?</p>

<p>I'm not saying there couldn't be a problem, nor that mirrorless isn't a solution (the Sony A7s probably betters the 7D in low light, for example) - but what aspect of the camera do you expect to be upgraded in which way? As many indicated, there is quite some mirrorless choice, with differing strengths and weaknesses, and DSLRs still can make their case too, especially the end of the spectrum where your 7D sits. You really need some sort of shopping list with "must have", "nice to have", "no need", and then read up on each system - with, or without mirror. And a system includes available lenses, flashes too, of course - as per your needs.<br /> As for the size/weight advantages - sure exists, but if you'll use your Canon lenses adapted on some mirrorless, those savings may be less impressive. Replace all lenses with native (and smaller) lenses, and the total cost might go up a serious bit. Hence - take a step back, is the problem you find with your 7D solved with changing a system, to start with?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, do your eyes get tired when you look into an EVF during long periods of time? <br />In dim conditions - are EVF noisy? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>no and no. in practice, i wouldnt say an EVF is all that different from an OVF, except you have a HUD with shooting info. they don't make noise in and of themselves. and i tend not to look into them for any longer than i would with an OVF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I'd take one step back - "the body getting old" - what isn't it doing? What is the problem you try to solve? Is a different camera <em>system</em> going to tackle that issue?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is puzzling advice. if you read the OP's original post, the main issue wasn't so much that the body was old--although 2009 is fairly ancient in digital camera terms--but the size of the system and the fact that the OP said he travels a lot. Therefore, keeping the same body doesn't solve that. And, thus, we move on to the next question: what mirrorless system? Theoretically, there are many possible options which will reduce size and weight. I'd look carefully at the available lenses for each possible system; m4/3 has the widest array of lenses, Sony the least, with Fuji somewhere in-between. the OP may not need more than a body with a kit zoom, or he may prefer primes, or a combination thereof. If the goal is to downsize into a system which will fit into a coat pocket, there are numerous ways to get there. Before offering any specific advice on systems, it would be helpful to know exactly what the OP shoots and perhaps budget -- one could easily spend $500 or $5000 on a ML system.</p>

<p>Coming from years of shooting with Nikon DSLRs, I grew tired of the weight and bulk, and found I didn't want to carry the camera without a specific purpose. I dabbled in mirrorless starting in the middle of 2014. I started with a used Leica M9P for use with Leica lenses I have accumulated over the years. The detail and clarity was an instant hit, even with only 18 MP (and no AA filter). These lenses are made to be used wide open, and are sharp from corner to corner. My problem was focusing and framing with lenses longer than 35 mm. My kit weighed about 10 pounds, including the small shoulder bag and four lenses, 28 mm to 90 mm.</p>

<p>When Sony introduced the A7ii, I ordered early and took delivery in early December, 2014. The most interesting features were the ability to use Leica and Nikon lenses, and especially the in-body image stabilization (IBIS). When the A7Rii was introduced in May 2015, I again pre-ordered and took delivery the end of June. The key selling points were higher resolution, no AA filter and a silent shutter operation.</p>

<p>I gradually replaced Leica lenses with Sony and Zeiss lenses designed for the A7, and find them to be even sharper than Leica lenses at a fraction of the cost. Nikon lenses were never a serious contender, based on image quality. The Leica sensitivity was limited to ISO 800, with more noise than the Nikon D3 at 3200. The A7Rii gets comparable quality at ISO 25,600. Focusing is a breeze, either manual or AF, and the images are sharp even at the widest apertures. My Sony kit with two bodies and seven lenses weighs exactly 20 pounds, including the ThinkTank Airport Essentials backpack, 15 pounds less than my D3 system.</p>

<p>With IBIS I don't need a tripod unless every pixel counts (landscapes and closeups), or I need hands-free operation or consistency between shots (portraits, panos and large group photos). I even shoot bracketed HDRs by hand with little loss to cropping. I haven't need a flash, nor do I own one for the A7 (I have four monolights if necessary). For closeups of things, I use a soft box (tent cube) and a couple of desk lamps.</p>

<p>In short, I came for the size, and stayed for the quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It sounds like mirrorless is good now and the wave of the future too.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true in general. For some specific applications, a DSLR is arguably better (but not much). But for just about everything else, I am not sure if I could ever recommend a DSLR to anyone. DSLRs will eventually be less popular than 35mm.<br>

<br>

The real problem: which mirrorless system? They're all great. Olympus makes amazing cameras, the Sonys are amazing, the Fujis have such sharp files, etc. It's not an easy choice!<br>

<br>

The Leica M is technically mirrorless but it's practically a separate category.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is true in general. For some specific applications, a DSLR is arguably better (but not much).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is right. I prefer BIG reflex viewfinders, just my preference (and I hate tiny RF-like ones). I would come along with the big EVF of X-T1 but I should be sure that that electronic picture inside would not hurt my eyes when lookin into them for hours. </p>

<p>Dave, here is a review<br /><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/11/5492410/fujifilm-x-t1-review">http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/11/5492410/fujifilm-x-t1-review</a><br>

Pay attention to the skin tones of the children's portrait <em>in that article</em>. Generally Fujis can produce vibrant and gorgeous landscapes, but as of portraits - if you like it... go for it. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the Fujis have such sharp files</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only at base ISO, the dpreview examles show very strong noise reduction that kills the finest details and the picture from ISO 400 and up - picturs are "waxy" and "watercolor". Just use their comparometer of the scene and see. That ia a well known fact. The early samples from X-pro 2 I have seen show its better work. But I haven't seen ISO 1600 yet. </p>

<p>And the NR is applyed to <strong>raw</strong> - always. </p>

<p>Following the advice of Steve Huff, I turn all NR features off in the Sony mod 2 cameras. I prefer more granular noise to the worm tracks created by NR. Not well documented, but using long exposure NR reduces the bit depth from 14 to 12 in uncompressed RAW files.</p>

<p>Noise usually affects random pixels. The greater the resolution (MP), the smaller the pixels. Consequently noise with a 42 MP sensor is obvious at 1:1 zoom in Lightroom, but nearly invisible in the overview or a normal sized print. It's really quite usable at ISO 25,600, at some cost in dynamic range.</p>