How mature is mirrorless technology?

<p>My main complaint about most modern pro-oriented cameras is that about a third of the capabilities are taken up with recondite video options that are of zero interest to me. I would happily get rid of all that to simplify the menus. For pros though video seems to be what it is all about these days so these will be staying, I'm afraid. If you feel the urge to try something new and can afford it, then why not go for a Sony body, there is not much to lose (the resell/trade in value notwithstanding). I personally have very little interest in using all my ancient lenses on a new body, I have just sold some Canon lenses that I just do not use. My aim is simplification.</p>

<p>I am still in the DSLR camp as I take a lot of sport and dance and prefer the rapid shooting and tuned AF for these. What you gain in size from a mirrorless I think you lose in good handling with larger lenses. The weight difference is not very significant for full frame as pointed out above, and I don't much care for the low battery life of mirrorless, I am even finding the lower battery capacity of the the 5DIV slightly off putting. This is something you can get used to though. I am surprised you find the Nikon AF unreliable. I have never felt this with my Canons.</p>

<p>Having said this, when the kids have left home and I no longer need my 70-200 f2.8 etc, I am pretty sure I will be using the Fuji APS system - guaranteed smaller size and weight, unless Canon have something exciting up their sleeve.</p>

<p>Fuji-X-TRANS sensor technology as we know the RGB photosites on the sensor have a random array that has proven useful to control moire because of the omission of the AA filter. What is less commonly known is that the random array is also constructed to get the Red wave length of light to focus on the same plane as Green and Blue. Historically lens manufacturers have constructed Apochromatic lens elements to get Red to line up with Green and Blue. Remembering back in the day when Schneider built two Super-Achromat lenses for Hasselblad that were exorbitantly expensive to provide an excellent result to get RGB to focus in harmony on the film plane, I think they were a 250mm and a 500mm Super Achromat by Schneider. Fuji's method is to gather RGB light from the lens as its the sensor that rigs Red to focus along with Green and Blue. Certainly there is an explanation more in depth that is available, I'll try to dig it up as it provides detail of the the individual counts of color photosites that makes this possible. Basically, the sensor is selectively shifting Red to get inline. https://www.flickr.com/photos/71196598@N08/</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D750 that I really like and am going to keep it even though I am going to get a Fuji XT2. I shoot with guys that have the X series bodies and am impressed enough to buy one and some Fuji lenses. The ease of operation, the colors out of the box, lots of knobs and the convenient size made me a believer along with their nice assortment of really nice lenses.</p>

<p>I'm using Sony APS for compact size and I think it's quite mature.</p>

<p>For portraits, I use an A6000 with a 50mm lens. The alternative would be an FX Nikon and 85mm lens. Here's the comparison:</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/170131-SonyAPS-NikonFX-Size.png" alt="" /></p>

My issue with smaller formats than full-frame is

that you have to have lenses with a ridiculously

wide aperture to get a really shallow depth-of-field.

Diffraction kicks in earlier at small stops as well. Lenses with large apertures tend to be big and heavy, somewhat offsetting the small size and weight of the camera body.

 

OTOH, a smaller format lets you use an aperture like f/2 in low light and still have an adequate DoF. There are pros and cons, but on the whole I prefer the look of images from the larger format. I don't think I could get along with 4/3rds at all.

<p>I think that someone on this site once made the point that mirrorless APS-C was the sweet spot for quality, size, performance and cost. I think that is becoming more true over time, as I would prefer an APS-C mirrorless system over any 'full frame' system except the Leica M.</p>

<p>I'm a huge fan of the A7 and the SL but I still would choose an XT or A6000 over those.</p>

<p>To respond to the question of how users get on with m4/3:<br>

I started of with an Olympus EP-2. Although capable of good images, it was an appalling camera to use. In fact when my EM-1 was away for repair, I picked up the EP-2 and just couldn't understand how to use it. That rear screen was awful anyway and I could not use both the hot shoe VF-2 and flash at the same time, hopeless for macro.<br>

These things were overcome with the EM-1, plus it used RC flash, my normal use being off-camera. I welcome the stop-smaller aperture effect for macro. Even down at effective aperture of f22 and f32, any diffraction is difficult to see and is easily removed by software. I have no interest in updating to EM-1ii.<br>

I have a full frame Sony A7R which will make good use of my heritage wide and ultra-wide angle lenses and my full frame 1:1 Printing Nikkor 105mm macro. (I am considering a Laowa 12mm with shift, which will give 24mm with shift on m4/3).<br>

I am not a shallow DOF enthusiast, wide-angle work being mainly buildings and landscapes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Did you ever try one Joe? You could be in for a big and pleasant surprise!</p>

<p><em>There's another important benefit of mirrorless. The Sony cameras have a self-cleaning sensor, which has been highly effective. It is an adjunct of the IBIS mechanism. In the last two years, I've only needed to clean it manually on two occasions. With Nikon, it's required every three weeks.</em></p>

<p>You're talking of a 2007 Nikon camera and comparing to recent models from Sony in 2017. What is in a decade? </p>

<p>Sensor cleaning (by a system which shakes the debris off the sensor automatically) has been a standard feature in most Nikon DSLRs since 2008, depending on the exact model (apart from the D3400 and D3X).</p>

<p>I also have a camera (Olympus) with sensor cleaning but the kind of sticky bits from the natural environment don't shake free and a clean once or twice a year is required. It will depend on where you change lenses.</p>

<p>Sony has a self-cleaning sensor only for models with in-body image stabilization. What's happened in 10 years at Nikon? The D5 does not have this feature.</p>

<p>Nikon has finally just added wifi and tilting lcd screens. Such a shame after 30 plus years with Nikon and to watch them sit on their laurels while newcomer Fuji and its X-T2 does 14fps with auto focus that's on par with all Nikkon bodies except the D5. And at 2/3's the cost. The X-T2 is a dslr killer. </p>

<p><em>"I think that someone on this site once made the point that mirrorless APS-C was the sweet spot for quality, size, performance and cost"</em><br>

true, and you can use the old DSLR lens. what's not to like (except if you're a dedicated full time sports shooter)</p>

<p><em> </em></p>

<p>The revelations of the huge leap in autofocus improvement between the XT-1 and XT-2 is still sinking in.</p>

 

<p>Yes, Don, they are. I can only imagine the X-T3.</p>

<p>I don't believe in changing paradigms for the sake of it, but the shift from DSLR to mirrorless is more inevitable than the shift from film to digital. Film cannot be replaced (ATM), but DSLRs can be, and have been. DSLRs still hold proverbial Berlin, while film resurgence and mirrorless encircle the city and close in by the day.</p>

<p>Some people don't like to see their paradigm become overturned, and I have to say I do sympathise. There is something nice about the reassuring heft of a pro level DSLR. However, they're eventually going to be extinct.</p>

<p>So what's the next paradigm? I think I can see it. And I guarantee you that it will face similar criticism that mirrorless faces today. The next paradigm was hinted at by Phillip Greenspun and others, over 15 years ago: the merging of stills and motion at a low price point. This hasn't happened yet - compressed on-board 4K is not the same thing. The RED cameras already have the performance, but they are a little bit big and they cost a lot.</p>

<p>I'm often forced to use electronic shutter and I've had a couple images ruined by rolling shutter. A few more also ruined under certain Arri stage lighting that produced banding. I solved that by lowering my shutter speed to 1/100th or slower but this isn't always ideal. Hopefully soon we get global shutters.</p>

<p>And for the Fuji Windows users, Iridient is now available for Windows and not just Mac.<br>

http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/xtransformer_download.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D5 does not have this feature.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it does. As does the D4S, D4, D3S, and about every other camera Nikon has introduced since 2007 (your D3 was one exception (Ilkka already mentioned the others); the D300 introduced at the same time as the D3 does have that feature).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>X-T2 does 14fps with auto focus</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But does the viewfinder keep up when tracking something that moves? Every mirrorless I have checked out so far has this combination of EVF lag and blackout that makes it hard to actually track anything properly. On a DSLR, it takes 10+fps to make this a breeze; at slower fps, the blackout periods are rather long and tracking precision suffers too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But does the viewfinder keep up when tracking something that moves? Every mirrorless I have checked out so far has this combination of EVF lag and blackout that makes it hard to actually track anything properly</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The X-T2 with battery grip and in boost mode bumps the evf from 60Hz to 100Hz and is the best I've seen. It's still not as nice as a slr with a fast shutter speed but you get used to it, Dieter </p>

<p>Under normal light, the Sony A7ii and A7Rii viewfinders update about 60 frame/sec. There is no perceptible delay nor jerkiness in the image. However under extremely dim light the sample interval lengthens once there is no more gain to be had in the viewfinder circuit. The viewfinder maintains a brightness similar to the final image, provided the live effects option is turned off. The shutter lag is estimated at less than 20 sec.</p>

<p>Lag is increased under certain circumstances, such as live effects on and TTL flash. The flash takes a preview frame to set the exposure, adding about 1/2 second to the lag.</p>

Film resurgence? Dream on!

In what way can film not be replaced?

Because if you haven't noticed, it already has been.

 

Adding video to stills cameras, or vice-versa, is no

paradigm shift. It's been happening for years.

Although video is demanding of the viewer's

attention and requires equipment to be viewed.

While a print is passive, contemplative and

meditative in nature. Same equipment to capture,

entirely different outcomes in viewing perception.

 

BTW. I'm still drawn to the Sony A7Rii, or it's successor. Looking at sample shots online the A7Rii produces clearly superior image quality to any of Fuji's APS offerings. In fact I see very little difference between X-trans shots and a Nikon D7200, which I already own. Apart from less yellow discrimination in the X-trans and greater overall colour saturation. Something that could easily be tweaked in post.

<p>the A7R II is indeed incredible, but the X-trans camera's, especially new versions, are quite good, are quicker, lighter and less expensive.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's still not as nice as a slr with a fast shutter speed but you get used to it, Dieter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice of you to admit the shortcoming. And, so far, I haven't gotten used to it. But my A7 certainly is not at the forefront of technology anymore (if it ever was). Totally unacceptable AF and EVF performance for anything that moves and that one needs to pan with. The fact that most (all?) EVFs still resort to displaying a still image (the last one taken) when the fps rate goes up makes it hard to follow a moving subject when panning; one simply doesn't get to view where the subject really is. People can hype up mirrorless all day long; as long as it doesn't take actual behavior while shooting into account, it's not more than touting of data without much if any comprehension of their meaning in real life. 60fps, 100fps, 120fps EVF refresh rate means very little unless it does in fact enable you to see where your moving subject actually is - and I don't think an EVF will ever be as good in that regard as the optical viewfinder of a DSLR that itself adds zero latency to the viewing process. No EVF will ever achieve "no delay"; the question simply is will it ever update "fast enough" to allow "real-time" viewing?</p>

<p>To me, many of the so-called advantages of mirrorless have either be debunked as myths or simply never materialized. As always, since I am not interested in video at all, my arguments solely apply for what I use a camera for:still photography.</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, all I can suggest it to rent an A7RII for a period long enough to thoroughly test it and find out if it suits what you shoot and how you shoot. What matters/works for others may not work for you. It certainly is not as black and white as many make it out to be (mirrorless is the future, DSLR is dead); there's a whole lot of gray tonality in between.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with Dieter. The DSLR will take a long time to die because it is well proven and it is currently unmatched for shooting fast moving objects, particularly in low light. With matched AF lenses there is no real downside to using them, apart from the largely philosophical objection to mirrors moving. The weight difference is usually exaggerated as discussed.</p>

<p>Its a tough pill to swallow when the consumer spends its hard earned monies in a brand, or camera system that is soon to be obsolete. Welcome to the digital realm it goes with the territory and people will defend their investment to the hilt as far as going blind to many realities. There is a direct connection to what people think of their camera as to how much money they spend. </p>