DSLR vs mirrorless

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by kylebybee, Mar 30, 2015.

  1. Just want to hear opinions on this topic. You see/hear a lot of photographers saying that mirrorless cameras are the future and our DSLR's are going to fade out and not be able to compete. I'd like to think that they're wrong.
     
  2. I think neither is the future of general photography, cell phones are.
    The problem is that the Interchangeble Lens Camera market has been on a steady decline for a while, and companies aren't making money hand-over-fist on them anymore.
    For me, DSLRs didn't work anymore (I'm an amateur, like virtually all of the people who are driving the market). So I switched to a nice small µ43 system that I like better.
    Horses for courses...
    If I was a sports shooter or action shooter or what have you, no way would I have made that move.
     
  3. as far as i know the mirrorless cameras work on contrast based autofocus not phase detection, so i am not interested.

    digital viewfinder.
    yuk
     
  4. Yup, there are definitely trade-offs (although I would argue that there are tradeoffs both ways).
    Both have a place for now.
     
  5. Cell phones are required in practice to be ultra thin and so long focal lengths cannot be implemented without giving up the thin form factor and pocketability to some extent. I don't think cell phones can get around this limitation. Another limitation is that their user interface is good for social communication but not so good for holding a camera steady, and they have no viewfinder, and very limited controls. What the cell phone can do for a more serious photographer is act as the hub that links a dedicated camera to the internet and the world. For example the D7200 links itself to the phone by tapping the two into each other (NFC) and establishing a wifi connection; to my understanding after this has been done the phone can be used as a remote control for the camera and has access to the images for posting online or e-mailing. I haven't used this myself but I think it is likely to be quite convenient enough.
    As for mirrorless cameras, I find most of them too small for comfortable use (my hands are not getting any smaller) and the autofocus in low light doesn't seem to work especially well. I do not like electronic viewfinders and find the delay and update artifacts (rolling shutter etc.) objectionable. I greatly enjoy the optical viewfinders of DSLRs (ones that have a proper glass pentaprism). I don't foresee myself using a mirrorless camera as my main camera system in the future.
    There are mirrorless cameras with phase-detect AF and it can enhance tracking of a moving subject over pure CDAF but at least in some cameras it doesn't work in low light. I think dedicated PDAF AF sensors in DSLRs are more sensitive in low light and they are constantly evolving in this respect as well (e.g. D7200, D750 have enhanced AF sensitivity in low light).
     
  6. Depends on what you want to do with your camera. The Nikon 1 mirrors system has phase detection auto-focus, just like the DSLR's, though in really low light it switches to contrast detection.
    For shooting in low light, especially fast action, the DSLR still cannot be beat, but if you don't need to shoot fast action in low light, mirrorless sure has some advantages in size and weight.
    Again, depends on what you want to use the camera for.
     
  7. whata bout extreme cold conditiones and mirrorless?
    any experiences there anyone?
     
  8. I shoot with both, and neither can replace the other for some tasks. While mirrorless may be the future, I live in the present, so I use the tools currently available. Most of the time I shoot with the Panasonic GH3, which is a wonderful camera, but the nicest thing about it is the small and light lenses. The 12-35 2.8 and 35-100 2.8 lenses are excellent, and are tiny compared to their SLR counterparts. You can carry the camera with four lenses all day and not feel it. However, if I need to make large prints, or need higher IQ for whatever reason, the D810 comes out.
    FWIW, I can make good 20 x 30s from the Panny. But I can make better ones from the D810.
     
  9. Yes, no, maybe, depends on what you're doing and what your preferences are.
    Whatever technical deficits the mirrorless cameras today may have, I'm quite sure they will be solved. The gap is already closed significantly. Whether that means mirrorless is THE future.... well, quite possibly for the mass market, it will be. And that makes quite a lot of sense too - for the mass production. Whether mirrorless can fully close the gap to DSLR for high-speed action, I do have some doubts - EVF, no matter how good, are never as real-time as optical, and the development of AF systems for DSLRs do not stop, so they'll probably keep their progressive edge for quite a lot of time.
    So, a shift for the mass market, will that automatically means that DSLRs will fade out? I guess it means so in the same sense that rangefinders, view cameras and medium format film cameras fade out - so no. It will become more niche, it will become more a high-end thing but there isn't a single reason why the market would not be able anymore to support DSLRs if that happens. In the same way the market for P&S cameras is now moving more to bridge cameras and high-end, as the low end small zoom range has been eaten by cellphones.
    As for me personally, much as Ilkka said: most mirrorless are too small to be comfortable to my taste, and I vastly prefer optical viewfinders. If DSLRs really go the way of the dodo, I'll switch fully to SLRs to satisfy my needs - so far, film seems to survive just fine, so I guess it'll still be around by then ;-)
     
  10. Mirrorless is a wide market. The camera could have almost any size sensor and any size physical shape. It's could be for instance a small pocketable big sensor camera or a dSLR like very capable camera with smaller lenses.
    But mirrorless is really a camera without a mirror. I have a GH3 (mirrorless) and the viewfinder is great except that the dynamic range is not nearly as good as the eye in an optical viewfinder.
    Autofocus implementation is more a question of how and what technology the manufacturer chooses to implement. To my knowledge no one has tried to make a mirrorless sportsshooter camera in the class and price of the Nikon D4 or Canon 1DX. What we do know is that the mirror is in the way of high fps.
    So I predict the mirror to eventually disappear from all new cameras and cameras that are dslrs today would then have electronic viewfinders instead. But it will take at least 10 years or more. The average consumer will of course use their phones to take photos so the market for "dedicated" cameras will become smaller and smaller.
     
  11. I have doubts that cold will affect a mirrorless camera any more than it affects a DSLR. Other than even more shortened battery life since they are smaller. By "extreme" cold, I assume you are talking about temps of 30 to 40 below zero. I've been thinking about eventually moving to a Fuji X platform for a travel camera, or the Olympus 4/3 system.
    Kent in SD
     
  12. DSLR cameras are too much big&heavy for many tasks. Right now they are the most capable, but I think they are because there is no interest at all to make other more interesting cameras. Like with the first DSLRs, they awaited for the market to be saturated with APS-C sensors before the release of full format sensors... I think it will be the same, when the saturation of FF reflex were complete, the high quality mirrorless cameras market will start the competition.

    It doesn`t makes sense to use a pro DSLR camera with heavy lens to make holiday photos. But the other choice is to buy a "degraded" version (cheaper material, trimmed features) or to jump to a mass product, consumer, two-years-life-mini-sensor compact camera... so many people at the end opt to buy expensive DSLRs.

    Put good full format mirrorless cameras on the market (say, Leica type, Nikon D800 quality) and I bet the top DSLR market will be reduced in half. I believe technology is perfectly ready to do so, but there is no commercial interest in killing the DSLR goose yet...
     
  13. @ kent
    i had my eos 1d mark 3 black out on the display after too long in heat..it was a pain to me too belive me that..it kept on taking photos, i just couldnt see them.
    i also had some issues in extreme cold weather, ice in and on the viewfinder and weird distorted crytsals on the back of my screen, this did only happen once to my very beaten up d3.
    i am not so sure but if my display can go black and distorted in heat or extreme cold i would say my electronic view finder can too..
    i am not willing to test drive a mirrorless system as i wasted too much money over the last two years on breaking equipment anyway...it just ...doesnt feel right. should test it.
    i have seen images taken in norway or iceland too..but i dont trust them as my d3 went mad after two days near tromso..
     
  14. The extreme cold thing is another kind of shooting. For me, if it's cold enough to freeze out an LCD display, it's probably a good opportunity for a film camera isn't it?
    I honestly don't know as I don't shoot under such demanding conditions.
     
  15. i did not expect that to happen and i do not know what happened but i am guessing i was handleing lenses wrong.
    a beginners mistake, i guess.
    but it did freeze up..and that was not so funny.
    i had been shooting in -20 to -30 degrees for quite some times already..yeah..i like snow :).. and only had a couple of problems.
    this was one.

    i think it is relevant as i do not know what might happen to the crystals in the EVF..what if they black out?
    based on that, i would say big dslr as the current 1dx or d4s are unlikely to vanish anytime soon.
     
  16. Smart phones and professional camera equipment are the future. Professional gear is about the lenses, and that is the Achilles Heel of mirrorless, not enough market demand for high end glass.
     
  17. I am new in mirrorless micro 4/3 with the Olympus OMD E-M1. Still learning about it - and again chickened out last night from using it in a real event (lol) because I had not used the flash (FL 600R) enough, or read the manual, to understand its TTL capability.
    Don't know much about other mirrorless, but here are some info about this camera related to the discussion so far:
    • It has a 16.3MP sensor
    • Has both contrast and phase detection AF
    • Weather resistant - a YouTube video soaks it in water and still shooting away. Having had Nikon camera/lenses in water, mud, hale-rain storms, fine sands of Death Valley, and damaged at Niagara Falls mist before, this aspect has some practical relevance to me.
    • Claims to tolerate cold temperature to -10°C (-50°F?). Hope I will never ever need to test this.
     
  18. Dan Brown, after Olympus releases its 7 - 14 zoom and the 300mm f2.8 later this year, there will be pro lenses including (35mm equivalents):
    14-28 (7-14) f4
    24-80 (12-40) f2.8
    80-300 (40-150) f2.8
    600 (300) f2.8
    All of those are weather sealed, too.
    In addition, there are fast primes from Olympus in equiv. focal lengths of 24, 35, 50, 90 and 150 that are all stellar, not to mention what Panasonic has to offer (which is also essentially a full range of pro lenses).
    You lose some shallow depth-of-field advantage when shooting mirrorless, that's still a big drawback these days imho, but those lenses are pretty pro and capable of shooting pretty amazing stuff.
    The real exciting thing would be if Nikon made a similar DX (or even FX) offering. Their mirrorless foray has been, imho, an expensive toy like Pentax's.
     
  19. Hmmm . . . . a contentious topic for sure, so here's my gasoline on the fire . .

    As an advanced amateur/enthusiast I currently have 3 mirrorless cameras (Panasonic G5, GX7, Sony A7r) and one DSLR (D800). I shoot just about everything.
    For tripod work the D800 is about as good as it gets. For any kind of very low light work the D800 is tough to beat.
    For any kind of spur of the moment candid work or video I much prefer my GX7. I have fast primes and a few zooms and the speed of focus (non-AFC) and focus accuracy are excellent. 16MP is more than enough for 90% of what I do.
    I get frustrated with my fast lenses on my D800 as the PDAF is just not accurate enough - hence my A7r which I can see the actual DOF and nail the focus (like with my 135/2 APO Ziess).
    I was talking to the local Nikon rep this past weekend and she quizzed me on why I would buy a mirrorless (m43 or Sony FX) and I told her:
    - Accurate focusing (m43 and Sony FE)
    - Ability to have silent shutter (m43)
    - Compact, light weight body (m43 and Sony FE)
    - Accurate DOF preview with really fast lenses
    - Customizable EVF display
    - Ability to use high quality legacy lenses of just about any kind
    DSLRs will surely stay with us, but the majority of bodies will likely move over to mirrorless due to the following reasons:
    - Cheaper to manufacture (no mirror mechanism, no AF sub-sensors, heavy OVF optics, etc.)
    - Advances in fast readout from sensors and processing
    - PDAF on sensor
    - EVF display/optics improvements (they are already very very good)
    - Power draw from electronics and battery power
    I asked the Nikon rep to please pass on to Nikon that at the very least I want a D810 mirrorless version - call it the "DM810". Keep the F mount if they must, but put on-sensor PDAF, EFCS (or better yet totally electronic shutter), an excellent EVF, IBIS and I would buy one. Not going to happen any time soon unfortunately.
     
  20. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Dan Brown, after Olympus releases its 7 - 14 zoom and the 300mm f2.8 later this year, there will be pro lenses including (35mm equivalents):
    14-28 (7-14) f4
    24-80 (12-40) f2.8
    80-300 (40-150) f2.8
    600 (300) f2.8​
    Olympus has had a 300mm/f2.8 four-thirds (not Micro 4/3) lens for their now defunct DSLRs for a long time, over 10 years. It is not exactly new. I have played around with that lens, and it is just as big and heavy as any Canon or Nikon 300mm/f2.8, of course, but it is more expensive: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/301933-REG/Olympus_261004_300mm_f_2_8_ED_Lens.html
    Olympus' problem is that they have locked themselves into the 4/3 sensor, about 2/3 the area as APS-C. Perhaps it is great for amateur use due to its small size, but for any low-light, high-ISO application, it has a major inhalant disadvantage. Of course, Nikon 1 mirrorless goes even further with an even-smaller sensor. History will tell, but choosing the tiny CX sensor for mirrorless maybe one of the major errors in Nikon history.
    Weather resistant - a YouTube video soaks it in water and still shooting away. Having had Nikon camera/lenses in water, mud, hale-rain storms, fine sands of Death Valley, and damaged at Niagara Falls mist before, this aspect has some practical relevance to me.​

    You can demo a lot of wonderful things on a video. Use that camera in the demo video under similar, real-life tough environments and see how it performs. That is what it counts.
    I hope DSLR vs. mirrorless will not be the future endless debate topic as Canon vs. Nikon and Film vs. Digital previously. One thing I am certain about is that technology will continue to improve rapidly so that cameras will continue to evolve. Not having a mirror clearly has its advantages and disadvantages. I have tested a few mirrorless cameras, from Olympus, Nikon, etc. So far, I see no reason for me to buy one, from any brand with any sensor size, but the situation will certainly change over time and at some point, perhaps it will make sense to get a mirrorless camera.
    I agree that for a lot of casual situations, the camera on my old iPhone 5 is more than sufficient. I carry two phones (one work, one personal) essentially all the time anyway. There is no need to carry another camera for casual images.
     
  21. I owned a GF1 for about a year and then a GX1 for another year and a half. I used a nice zoom (P14-45), the Oly 17mm pancake, and the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye. I had an F-mount to M4/3 adapter, but did not use adapted lenses very often. On the Nikon side, I have been using a D200 and then D300 for the past 4-5 years.
    For me, the M4/3 cameras worked great but I just did not prefer them to my DSLR set up. The small size was helpful on a few occasions but I found I don't really mind the size of the Nikon DSLR. If I am going to carry a camera, the size difference is mostly inconsequential.
    M4/3 annoyances: (1) battery life; (2) durability; (3) ergonomics. The image quality was great but I am convinced I can usually spot a M4/3 "look" to images that I vaguely dislike. There is a sort of high sharpness and high DOF quality I perceive when I see many M4/3 images. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I find I prefer the image characteristics I see with APS-C and 35mm film.
    Also, I just got back from a road trip with lots of photo taking. With my DSLRs, they just go. You can leave the camera turned on and it is ready to shoot, no concerns about battery life. No need to wake up the EVF or LCD screen. The Nikon DSLR materials are quite robust - I don't worry about my camera being tossed into a pack or swinging around on my neck. The ergonomics are also excellent for handling the camera in difficult conditions and quickly adjusting settings. I expect the mirrorless cameras will continue to improve on battery life, EVF quality/durability, etc. and the future should include plenty of good camera options for all :)
     
  22. Efforts to predict things nearly always just projecting existing trends. In the short term this works sometimes.
    Longer term predictions fail precisely because of the inability to imagine something different.
    All those powered balloons in 19th c. pictures of the future (link). 1930s sci-fi stories with slide rules on board spacecraft. Even Star Trek couldn't imagine the laptop or tablet.
    The majority of "photographs" are simple snapshots. That market is long since gone the way of the horse and carriage.
    We may not yet have seen what will replace dSLRs for 'serious' photography, if any, although it's unlikely that, whatever it is, it will have mechanical parts.
     
  23. As a longtime hobbyist who could spend the money on cameras, I went from film SLRs through point and shoot digital compacts, to DSLRs. I currently have a Nikon Coolpix A. It's mirrorless, has the APS-C sensor and processor of a D7000 DSLR, and a very high quality fixed lens. Not having to do sports, birds, etc., the wide angle is fine for 90% of my interests (travel, family, landscape). Pocketability is very welcome, after years of hauling the big bag.
     
  24. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Efforts to predict things nearly always just projecting existing trends. In the short term this works sometimes.
    Longer term predictions fail precisely because of the inability to imagine something different.​
    Anybody can predict the future, mostly incorrectly. Those with a lot of imagination to shape the future are visionaries, and some can find a way to make that reality. A recent example is Steve Jobs.
    Unfortunately, it is very obvious that I am nowhere, absolutely nowhere close to that league.
     
  25. If there's one thing you can learn from this thread, though, it's that if you are shooting one and want to investigate the other, it's best not to sell everything and then switch, but rather to dip your toes into the water and see.
    For me, that meant I had no regrets switching away from DSLRs. But YMMV of course.
     
  26. Interesting comment from Howard about the Coolpix A. I think this is the natural "mirrorless option" for Nikon at least in the near term. As Shun said, anybody can predict the future. So I predict Nikon will offer an FX version of the Coolpix A within 3 years. I am unable to predict the focal length - Nikon went with 28mm for the Coolpix A, but I would like to see the FX version go with something in the 35mm to 50mm range. I predict I will not be able to afford the camera :)
     
  27. That would be the forthcoming 300/4 Pro by Olympus (not f/2.8).
     
  28. That would be the forthcoming 300/4 Pro by Olympus (not f/2.8).​
    Right - Peter did you flip apertures for the 7-14mm and 300mm in your post above? Olympus has announced a 7-14mm f/2.8 and then a 300mm f/4, correct?
     
  29. hey jdm
    xerox developed the first ideas of a laptop in the late 1960's
    the first working laptop was build in 1976, the xeorox notetaker
    startrek was aired for the first time in 1966
    startrek however did have portable computers
    look at the ..let's call it healing-device of mccoy
    so technically they did have portable computers, which is the definition of a laptop, a small portable computer.
    i can remember that the first idea of a laptop was shown of as a model..i think it was build from cardboard or so..and that was before startrek, as far as i know, but ic annot remember the details..had been to long ..i am starting to forget things..(i am not that old..university..)
    one more thing though,..
    as this has turned into a wishlist forum post, as any nikon vs canon or whatever debate goes (thx shun ;) )
    i will conrtibute to this wish list that i insist on nikon makeing the d5 a left handed camera!
    finally...revenge will be ours !
     
  30. If you shoot any events or weddings, paid work, and don't have a big ol' Nikon or Canon and accompanying big glass, well....you're not shooting events or weddings. Period.
    Otherwise, mirrorless cameras are fun and good for travel and walkabouts.
     
  31. As a M43 user, I find many of the negative comments here about m43 are just not accurate. The bottom line is that, as with ANY camera system, aside from having the right glass, knowing your camera intimately is paramount.
     
  32. I'm pretty sure that mirrorless cameras will be the future. The DSLR is simply a hangover from the days when the only way to view through the taking lens was to use a mechanical system with a mirror diverting light from lens to viewing screen. There's now absolutely no need for that cumbersome arrangement with digital sensors and LCD/TFT monitor screens. Only user resistance to overcome. As with Canon's pellicle non-moving mirror system introduced in the 1970s.
    I, for one, would certainly like to see a full-frame mirrorless camera on sale. Taking Nikon F mount lenses of course! After all, it would be just like a current DSLR, only in permanent Live View mode. A tilt/swivel/swing (and possibly detachable) LCD would be great. I'm also sure that in a short time we'll have head-up type wearable displays immune to ambient light washout.
    Still, the mechanical mirrored SLR has had a good run of over 100 years - I have an old 1/4 plate SLR from around 1920, and similar designs of SLR were around for at least a decade before that.
    Incidentally, film isn't totally reliable in extreme cold either. The base and emulsion get very brittle and the film can snap as it's being wound on. The low humidity of cold conditions encourages build up of static charge on the film as well, and can give rise to spider-like discharge tracks; ruining the image. And metering and AF systems, since they rely on batteries, can be unreliable.
     
  33. I've been thinking about eventually moving to a Fuji X platform for a travel camera,​
    i've done this (with the XE1) and for travel, its hard to top the lighter weight and versatility of this system compared to a DSLR rig. i can basically squeeze a two-body setup into a fanny pack with 4-5 lenses. All of the Fuji lenses i have tried so far are excellent as well. But the issue with Fuji and all mirrorless is that as soon as you put a telephoto lens on there, you lose a lot of the size advantage. maybe the m4/3 systems are less restricting because of their smaller telezooms, but then as Shun says, you're giving up some inherent low-light ability due to sensor size. ive often thought m4/3 was a dead end because of sensor size, but then again, the all-in-one LX100 is really compelling with the fast fixed zoom lens and 4k video. Mirrorless' achilles heel in general is AF, although that's starting to change with the latest generation. not sure it will ever be good enough for sports/action, but for landscape, street, some PJ stuff and even portraits, i have no qualms about using this system, especially when i dont need to pull out the big guns.

    Where Nikon is concerned, it seems they dont really have a plan, except to try not to undercut their DSLR line. the Nikon 1 system isnt that bad for what it is, but IMO the UI is a bigger source of frustration than the sensor. The Coolpix A could have been executed way better IMO -- faster AF and a range of models with fix-focal lenses (28/35/50/85, plus a 24-105/4 zoom model) and a bit faster apertures on the prime lenses (at least f/2) would have been a great idea.

    We do see Nikon slimming down its current-gen DSLRs like the d5500 a bit, but there's some confusion with the overall product line. the d5500 has the flip-out screen for video, but you have to upsize to the 7xxx series to get external mic jacks, and you lose the flip screen. it's really a shame nikon doesn't make even one DX pancake lens, but put the 35/1.8 G DX on any compact body and you have a pretty capable imaging tool with a small footprint.
     
  34. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Where Nikon is concerned, it seems they dont really have a plan, except to try not to undercut their DSLR line.​
    Once upon a time, Kodak's strategy was to slow down their digital development so as not to undercut their then highly profitable film business. We all know how that worked out.
    Those companies that are focusing on mirrorless are those that have not much success in their DSLR business, so they have to try something very different. I would imagine that Canon and Nikon have plans for mirrorless, but the technology is not mature enough yet for them to make a major move. Unlike a lot of the other companies, Canon and Nikon are still making decent money from cameras. For some of the others, who knows how much longer they can sustain losses before they have to pull the plug. I have gone through that with Contax a decade ago and don't want to be stuck again.
     
  35. "DSLR vs mirrorless"
    "Just want to hear opinions on this topic."​
    Even though both disappoint me when it comes to manual focusing; I use and love them both.
    00dD85-555988684.JPG
     
  36. <<i have seen images taken in norway or iceland too..>>
    Iceland is actually pretty warm. It's in the Gulf Stream. I've been there twice and plan to go back in winter. Temps there are routinely in the +20s F range, where in the Dakotas it can easily get forty degrees colder than that. Looks like a great place to go for warmer weather during winter break to me! I've never had any problems with cold here in the Dakotas or Minnesota. I'm routinely out at night in temps of -5 to -15F, and don't flinch when it drops into the -30s. I have several batteries in an inner pocket. I don't see any issue other than battery life.
    Mary--
    Temperature scales C & F "cross" at -40. I.e., -40F is the same temp as -40C. So, -10C isn't very cold at all.
    Kent in SD
     
  37. If you shoot any events or weddings, paid work, and don't have a big ol' Nikon or Canon and accompanying big glass, well....you're not shooting events or weddings. Period.​
    Don't understand why you said that. Have you tested? Or were you talking about the perception of being "professional"? Please elaborate. I haven't done it yet but I don't see why an Olympus E-M1 (mentioning this particular model because I am not familiar with the other M4/3s) with equivalent lenses cannot shoot an event or wedding successfully. I am not saying I am right. I am just curious why you said that.
     
  38. With a DSLR I can always manual focus like I always did with a film SLR. I tried several mirrorless including the Fuji XT-1 and Olympus OMD-E-M1 and found I can't manual focus them easily. I've tried focus peaking but that doesn't work well for me either.
    But I realize that most people don't really care about manual focusing.
     
  39. I can see the time when a shutter is some kind of electro-chemical device like a screen with an opaque LCD which momentarily becomes transparent. It would be silent. What about the aperture mechanism? That would also be a kind of screen with an LCD which momentarily becomes a perfect circle with opaque edges and of the diameter needed for the desired exposure. It would also be silent. At that point whether you are using an SLR or an EVF it would work quietly, with no vibration in the camera body or the lens except for the focusing right before the exposure. The SLR could have a pellicle mirror. This was brought out by Canon in the 1960s, not the 1970s.
     
  40. I never considered myself a general shooter, although the level of my Photographs may say otherwise to some, I don't think a world with iPhones only is going to elevate terms of higher craft. Also, this forum is more than general Photography IMO, sometimes mundane, but, hey you got to have contrast in everything. There's space in flicker for iPhone Photography, move right along. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
     
  41. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Or were you talking about the perception of being "professional"? Please elaborate. I haven't done it yet but I don't see why an Olympus E-M1​
    People have captured wedding with 35mm film for decades. So I am sure any higher-end Micro 4/3 camera can get the jobs done, technically.
    Whether using a small Micro 4/3 camera makes one look "professional" enough is another matter. Once I shot a wedding with a friend, and a guest immediately commented on the "big lens" I had on my Nikon DSLR. That lens was a 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, big enough to impress one guest. The body I had in that occasion was an old D100 from over a decade ago; at the time it was a "modern" DSLR. I am sure any current Olympus Micro 4/3 camera can produce better results than the D100 can.
    But sometimes perception is more important than reality.
     
  42. <<People have captured wedding with 35mm film for decades. So I am sure any higher-end Micro 4/3 camera can get the jobs done, technically.>>
    I agree. They are still better than 35mm film. Maybe not quite as good as a Hassleblad, but the images would be cleaner. With the best lenses and held to a lower ISO (like a Hassleblad would be), they might just pull about even.
    Kent in SD
     
  43. Ideally I would like to use the simplest, least cumbersome, and least ostentatious equipment to get a job done. I had gone from using various flash brackets in the past to using none. And I still end up carrying a big heavy bag. Won't it be great if all this weight and size are reduced substantially. To me there doesn't seem to be a reason why a good quality M4/3 system cannot achieve equivalent results. That's why I would like to know what he was thinking or whether he had made an A-B comparison (referring to the poster who claimed that one must have big Nikon/Canon equipment to do a paid job).
     
  44. The joker in the deck is the long-term potential to have nearly flat lenses. The technology of bending light with a flat surface already exists and is now being refined. It might be 10 years or 30 before it's good enough for quality photography, but don't be surprised if the days of big, heavy glass end someday.
    We could end up shooting full frame or even medium-format mirrorless with almost no lens to speak of.
     
  45. it

    it

    Work = DSLR
    Fun/Volunteer Work = Mirrorless
    There is still no comparison IMO.
     
  46. We had some problems processing your entry:
    • Photo.net thinks you have included an obscenity in your post. If you didn't, please let us know via contact@photo.net and we will take a look at the situation. Please include a copy of the text you were trying to post.
    • Some four-letter words are not allowed here.
    • Photo.net thinks you have included an obscenity in your post. If you didn't, please let us know via contact@photo.net and we will take a look at the situation. Please include a copy of the text you were trying to post.
    ........................
    the forum won't let me post my awnser.
    and maybe that is a good thing.
    wishlist nikon canon micro 4 3 mirrorless dslr dxo mark -blahblahblah
     
  47. google
    photography fails
    gear
    D O E S N O T
    matter
    !!
    at all !
    someone close this threat or i am dying of an heartattack ..
     
  48. let's talk about star trek instead.
    wouldn't you agree, dear jdm, that the new installments of the franchise lack the charm the older films?
    i however find them more convincing as action scifi popcorn cinema as i would have said the older versions do.
    one might argue this has to do with the time the films were made but i strongly disagree.
    alien, the first film of the franchise, was also released in 1979, exact same year as the first star trek film.
    alien wipes the floor with the first startrek in any aspect i can think of.
    what comes to mind regarding the newer star trek installments is, that they
    somehow lack the wisdom of their captains and are not that empathetic as the older ones were.
    also cpt. krik kissed ohura during a time in which this was problematic.
    (in case you dnt know: white guy kissing a black woman on television in the usa in the 1960s).
    also women are equal to men in start trek.
    so i would argue, or more or less add to my last comment rgarding the initial post from JDM, that start trek did have visions that were far more important than to invision the design of a laptop as we now know it.
    to get even further away from micro 4 3rds and other things that do not matter:
    should the next startrek movie have the moral and humanist approach of the old films or should it degrade further to plain stupid action?
    discuss.
     
  49. I see people in this thread mistake mirrorless for a smaller sensor camera.
    Sony A7S for instance is mirrorless and full frame. It beats all dslrs in low light capability (including D4/D3s/Df etc) and also has arguably the best video quality of any mirrorless/dslr camera today.
    Video is actually one area where a lot of mirrorless cameras have the dslr severely beat. For instance the Panasonic GH4 is another one of the top cameras for shooting video.
     
  50. No mistake a mirrorless doesn't have a reflex viewfinder which I want. I decided this almost 40 years ago that I want a reflex viewfinder so I bought the Nikon instead of the Leica. I still want the reflex viewfinder.
     
  51. gear
    D O E S N O T
    matter
    !!
    at all !​
    Although gear =\= photography skills, it does matter.
     
  52. Sony A7S for instance is mirrorless and full frame. It beats all dslrs in low light capability
    A good sensor in itself is not sufficient to make a good low light camera. Useful autofocus tracking of a moving subject in low light is also needed, as are fast lenses.
     
  53. Ilkka, not to mention the difference between the lenses available for Nikon/Canon vs. Sony.
     
  54. @Mary Doo
    Yes I have compared a Lumix G6 and both a Nikon D700 and Nikon D7000 when I shot freelance assignments for my local newspaper as well as many corporate events. I am not a full time pro but work at least once every month to two months. I don't shoot weddings either although I've done one.....enough to know that I don't want to do them.

    The biggest issue I found with mirrorless cameras in dark rooms, where many of these events take place, is noise at high ISO's, particularly 1600 and 3200, and yes even with flash. I had a 14mm f/2.8 Panny lens, which is good, but no comparison to Nikkor 35mm f1.8 though. There are other issues....AF speed and tracking better on Nikon as well as the quickness of changing settings. Also, Nikon pro lenses and flashes are second to none, but this is strictly my opinion. I don't care about what equipment other photographers are using. For me, when I'm being paid good money by a corporation, event planner, or newspaper (they don't pay that much) to shoot their events, I need to deliver really clean shots and I need to trust my equipment so I can fully concentrate on capturing the decisive moment and not spend days in post production fixing images. My Nikons work splendidly for me and I won't use anything else for paid shoots. I'm sure many photogs are using mirrorless professionally, but it's not for me.....maybe it is for you. I sold that Lumix G6 I had, btw.

    I still think M4/3 cameras are great for travel and walking around town, they produce great images.
     
  55. You are basing your opinions of mirrorless for professional work on a Pany G6? . . . sigh . . .
     
  56. A G6 is a mid-grade camera. If you want to compare to a D700 or even a D7000, look at the GH4 or the Olympus OM-D series. Those are fast cameras with metal bodies and weather sealing. In that class you also have the Fuji X-T1 and some Sony options (A7II, Nex 7...)
     
  57. since last week i own a nikon d4s.
    my walk around camera is my beat up d3..fancy that.
    pick up a different camera.
    you will notice it changes the way you take photos.
    do this alot.
    you will improve.
    and sooner or later you will come to the point where you buy a holga.
    for me..that point was after my first publication in national geographic.
    i wanted a camera that is not...never..ever..doing exactly what i want.
    something that surprises me and thereby changes the way i see things.
    perfection is good and fine and something you should strife for.
    in that respect, gear does matter.
    but better gear will never ... E V E R ... make you a better photographer.
    never...
    get to the point where your current camera cannot do what you need.
    invest in something.
    but a good photo to me leaves you with a feeling, a sense of purpose, tells a story...a photo you will
    remember the next day.
    look at your favourites.
    how many of those photos were taken with 10k euros of equipment?
    for me, i know its just a few
    gear
    D O E S N O T
    matter
    !!
     
  58. Both types for work and play. BTW, cell phones are mirrorless cameras. The vast majority of photos taken today are on cell phones.
    Mirrorless is advancing very fast. Some do now use both contrast and phase detection for AF, and approach speeds of SLRs. But for some things DSLR's are better, and will remain so, especially if requiring reach. Yes, pros can and do use mirrorless and/or both. As people get older, mirrorless grows more attractive. Lenses on many are superb.
     
  59. The biggest issue I found with mirrorless cameras in dark rooms, where many of these events take place, is noise at high ISO's, particularly 1600 and 3200, and yes even with flash​
    that's not an issue with current-gen mirrorless, tho... my Fuji XE1 is cleaner than my D300s at high ISO. and the Sony A7s has better performance, reputedly, than the Nikon D3s. It is accurate to note that Nikon/Canon have more complete lens options in most cases, but mirrorless is catching up fast. nearly all manufacturers now have equivalent 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 zooms--except, surprisingly, Sony FE-mount--and lenses like the Fuji 50-140/2.8 shave 1.2 lbs off the Nikon equivalent and around $500 off the price, neither of which are insignificant. the only real issue i see with using m4/3 for weddings would be if you intend on making ginormous prints out of them or need to shoot available light above ISO 3200. The notion that Uncle Bob would laugh at your puny gear set-up is more of a psychological issue.
     
  60. gear
    D O E S N O T
    matter
    !!​
    I like photographic gear as much as photography. So it does matter to me.
     
  61. fair enough!
    that is a good point bebu! :)
    i only get angry about gearheads because it always has this swing to it as it were an excuse and this drives me crazy
     
  62. One can speak of merits and demerits of individual cameras but DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras cannot be compared, not yet anyway, because DSLR represent a seasoned technology while Mirrorless cameras are a young and developing technology. There some things you cannot use a mirrorless for, like sports action. The gap between the two technologies will narrow to the point where mirrorless cameras will become professional grade. Then it will incorporate the best of DSLR and RF cameras.
    Here is one example of Mirrorless virtue: Canon FDn 200/2.8 + Fujifilm X-E1.
    00dDVW-556057784.jpg
     
  63. Mirrorless cameras are not a "new techology"; they existed long before SLRs and in the digital era they have existed side by side from the beginning. Mirrorless interchangeable lens digital cameras however are relatively new. Whether DSLRs improve faster than mirrorless cameras or slower, is anyone's guess. A mirrorless camera has the disadvantage that it must measure the focus offset to target using the same sensor that the image is formed with. An image forming sensor and a distance measurement sensor are fundamentally different, which is why DSLRs focus track better using lenses that provide a shallow depth of field as they have separate, specialized sensors for each task. A mirrorless camera can focus on a static subject more accurately because the image is formed by the same sensor as is used for AF (in principle DSLR live view can do the same), but the mirrorless design becomes a disadvantage if there is low light and the subject starts to move. Embedding phase measurement sensors inside the main imaging sensor helps to achieve some degree of moving subject tracking in mirrorless cameras in bright light, but it seems to compromise image quality and work poorly in low light. I am not sure if this problem will ever have a solution that would satisfy the requirements of sports and documentary photography in low light. It might, but then again it might not.
    However, irrespective of what happens to autofocus tracking in low light, many people will choose the smaller cameras for their advantages, and the different technologies can coexist.
     
  64. Looked at some of the Mirrorless products last night and the Fujifilm X-T1 is rather intriguing. Two things about it, first, reviewers rave over the image quality, and second, the viewfinder is said to be big, bright, crisp, and operates in real time with no display lag.
    Plus, the range of lenses is rather broad, and the Fujinon lenses are very good to excellent, as has pretty much always been true.
    I like the idea of a smaller camera that fits in nice little camera bags so you can carry them everywhere. In fact, my short list now includes a trip to the local camera shop to check the X-T1 out. I could envision a transition from Nikon DLSRs to the Fujifilm X-T1.
     
  65. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Two things about it, first, reviewers rave over the image quality, and second, the viewfinder is said to be big, bright, crisp, and operates in real time with no display lag.​
    How much I trust a review highly depends on the reputation of the reviewer. Dan, I have no idea who the reviewer is, and it doesn't matter to me.
    Mirrorless EVF display lag can be almost negligible nowadays. However, I still prefer the view from an optical viewfinder, but that comes with the price of having a mirror. Check out the EVF in some high contrast situation, e.g. indoors with a window showing some bright outside. If the contrast is too much for the sensor/EVF to handle, it can be unpleasant. With an optical viewfinder, your eye pupil can still close down.
    Just about any brand can make great lenses in these days, e.g. Sigma, Tamron ... Hasselblad has ditch Zeiss and uses Fujinon lenses for the H series, so I am sure Fuji is fully capable of making great lenses.
    However, I have mixed feelings about small cameras. If anything, I think the Nikon D7000 series is already too small. I know that plenty people will disagree, but personally, I have no problem at all taking a D7000 or D800 everywhere. It is those big 500mm/f4 with a matching tripod that are problems.
     
  66. Check out the EVF in some high contrast situation, e.g. indoors with a window showing some bright outside. If the contrast is too much for the sensor/EVF to handle, it can be unpleasant. With an optical viewfinder, your eye pupil can still close down.​
    that's a good point--the XE1's EVF is very small and low-rez-- but the XT1 has an eyecup on its EVF and is much bigger. that alone could be a reason to get an XT1. or you could just buy a loupe for the LCD monitor on any other mirrorless camera and compose from that ;). one of the biggest reasons to go with Fuji, though is their after-the-fact firmware--they just released another one for the XT1--which shows a commitment to customer care Canikon haven't developed.
    I have no problem at all taking a D7000 or D800 everywhere. It is those big 500mm/f4 with a matching tripod that are problems.​
    im playing devil's advocate here, but you can get out to 600mm at 5.6 with a consumer-grade m4/3 tele... a nikon 1 with the 180/2.8 would be almost 500mm at 2.8, although you wouldnt get the subject isolation of an exotic bazooka, you also wouldnt have to mortgage a house to buy one. so that fact alone is worth mentioning. i know you shoot surf, Shun... is there anything which would prevent you from, say, rigging up a nikon 1 with a tele for that? you'd actually have a much faster frame rate than any DSLR, and at base ISO, you should be able to get decent/printable shots without lugging a heavy tripod. (note to nikon: put a 5-axis stabilizer in the V5.)
     
  67. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Eric, sensor size matters. I am not very interested in going smaller than APS-C.
    See the bird image I posted yesterday to Barry's D7200 thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dCJy
    http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dDVH-556055384.jpg
    That kind of exposure setting is very representative for what I shoot. For any birds, 1/1250 sec to 1/2000 sec is typical. Even at f4, I frequently need ISO 500, 800 and up. Using base ISO on some Nikon 1 CX sensor or micro 4/3 is simply not realistic for me. Additionally, the pixel pitch on something like CX is going to have lots of limitations with diffraction.
    It is not mirror or mirrorless, it is sensor size.
     
  68. "(note to nikon: put a 5-axis stabilizer in the V5.)"​
    Absolutely. That, and a couple other features, might sell me on committing to the 1 System for most of my candid snapshot photography. Sensor stabilization would definitely tempt me to upgrade from the V1:
    • Adding metering with non-Nikkor lenses (Fuji X-cameras can do this, using cheap adapters). I can guesstimate exposure pretty well. But I'd rather not.
    • Focus peaking aid for manual focus lenses.
    • Reducing buffer lag on the viewfinder. Even the V1 has no significant perceptible LCD/EVF lag when panning - it's much better than the Fuji X-A1, especially in dim light. But the viewfinder blackout during buffering with faster framerates when shooting raw causes me to miss some fast moving candid snaps, or just take wild guesses at composition. That's the main hindrance to using the 1 System for action. Not the AF speed, framerates or overall quickness, but the viewfinder blackout.
     
  69. I think the big difference is just the viewfinder. EVF or Reflex viewfinder. Mirrorless has some inherit advantages and some disadvantages but they are improving and closing that gap.
     
  70. As I remember, this question has been asked many times. And I have heard a lot of answers not comparing DSLR with Mirrorless, but instead comparing brand with brand and/or model with model. Even when we compare EVF with Reflex viewfinder we often compare the lag of EVF and also comment about how it is being and will improve to reduce the lag... I think that is still comparing some current models and hoping about some other models in the near future.
    I just want to mention the mere important fact (that is never going to change) that a mirrorless is just less a mirror. That allows the mirrorless to be smaller (and one less thing to make) but at the same time forbidding it to have a reflex viewfinder. So the decision is easy to make. If you want a smaller camera body, go with the mirrorless. If you need a reflex viewfinder, you need an SLR.
    By the way, I want to compare an EVF and a reflex viewfinder, not about lag because lag can be improved and people have different tolerance about lag. One difference between an EVF and a reflex viewfinder is that the reflex viewfinder tries to to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at, but an EVF tries to estimate what we are going to get. Just the idea attracts a lot of people to the EVF, but how can they estimate the result of a flash exposure? (I am not talking about the current models, but about any possible improvements in the future). Usually, EVF will show a dark result when you turn the flash on. And how about an exposure of 10 seconds? Well, they will take the result of 1/30 s (or so) and multiply by 300. And how accurate that can be? will they estimate the camera shake also?
    By the way, you always see how your hands are shaking in the reflex viewfinder, have you tried to see how IS effect is in an EVF? What if an EVF is just trying to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at? The way our eyes see is pretty complicated.
     
  71. I shoot with Nikon D800 and the best Nikkor lens and I shoot Sony a7R with the best available lenses from Sony. I use the Nikon for professional work and the Sony for travel and personal work. When Sony achieves some professional capabilities I might switch to Sony completely because of smaller size and lighter weight. If I get a chance I will post up some Sony pictures on my website and provide a follow up. I did post a panoramic of the Kilauea Caldera on my page of this website. Nothing complicated: Sony a7r, tripod and software...the level of detail is quite remarkable. If interested, email me and I will send the hi-res file to you.
    For me, size, weight and easy of sensor cleaning is a big plus for the mirrorless. The IQ for Sony a7R is excellent, but autofocus is a problems, off camera flash support and some other needed professional enhancements. Hope the A9 addresses these issues.
     
  72. There are a couple other large differences in mirrorless. With an SLR, the mirror assembly is used to route some light to the AF module in the bottom of the mirror box, and the prism is used to route some of the light to the exposure meter in the prism assembly. With mirrorless, these are done using the image sensor, and so far, the image sensor does a poorer job of both critical functions. That may be changing, as I understand the Fujifilm X-T1 can accomplish predictive focus tracking at 8 frames per second. And, a live histogram visible in the EVF greatly assists in setting or compensating exposure.
     
  73. For any birds, 1/1250 sec to 1/2000 sec is typical. Even at f4, I frequently need ISO 500, 800 and up. Using base ISO on some Nikon 1 CX sensor or micro 4/3 is simply not realistic for me. Additionally, the pixel pitch on something like CX is going to have lots of limitations with diffraction.​
    f/4 and ISO 800 seems within the capabilities--just barely--of the 20mp BSI sensor in the J5, based on what ive read about that same sensor in the Sony RX series. and for shooting surf, which is generally sunny conditions, you could probably go with a lower ISO. im not saying that setup is ideal, but it could make sense, particularly for travel in hot climates.

    when i was in Baja California Sur last year on vacation, we were walking along the beach and came across a surfing competition. Now, obviously, for vacation shooting, lugging a heavy tripod, full-size DSLR, and a 500mm lens across a sandy beach with temperatures in the high 90s with high humidity just in case you come across something worth shooting is going to be rather hellish and impractical. doubt you'd be able to make it more than a mile from the hotel before you gave up. i had my Fuji mirrorless rig with me, but didn't have a telephoto. the Nikon 1 equipped with a compact tele, with its AF capabilities and high FPS, would have been perfect for such chance shooting opportunities. The Fuji, meanwhile, was great for street shooting in Los Cabos and La Paz -- the 14/2.8 is a spectacular lens optically, and much more compact than any comparable DX or FX lens i own. So while i dont see mirrorless as a replacement for DSLR per se in every situation, for things like hiking, adventure travel, some PJ applications--situations where a compact, light kit is advantageous--it could be preferable. Would i move to an all-mirrorless set up? Not yet, but that time is nearing closer and closer.
     
  74. By the way, I want to compare an EVF and a reflex viewfinder, not about lag because lag can be improved and people have different tolerance about lag. One difference between an EVF and a reflex viewfinder is that the reflex viewfinder tries to to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at, but an EVF tries to estimate what we are going to get. Just the idea attracts a lot of people to the EVF, but how can they estimate the result of a flash exposure? (I am not talking about the current models, but about any possible improvements in the future). Usually, EVF will show a dark result when you turn the flash on. And how about an exposure of 10 seconds? Well, they will take the result of 1/30 s (or so) and multiply by 300. And how accurate that can be? will they estimate the camera shake also?
    By the way, you always see how your hands are shaking in the reflex viewfinder, have you tried to see how IS effect is in an EVF? What if an EVF is just trying to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at? The way our eyes see is pretty complicated.​
    I gotta say John, I have little idea what you are talking about.
    An OVF has limitations and great features that we old photographers are quite used to while these new EVFs have some great advantages and limitations that are new to us and some find troublesome. As a D800, GX7, and (formerly A7r) shooter I have no problem going between them as they each have their strengths and weaknesses that I work around and still manage to get great images.
    Sure the EVFs on my mirrorless cameras can get grainy and laggy in really low light and sometimes don't have the dynamic range that I'd like, but I really like being able to perfectly manually focus, have all sorts of info in the viewfinder and actually see the true depth of field.
    My D800 is great in bright light and very little time lag, but I really hate guessing if the focus is correct (w/o having to resort to the kludge that LiveView is on Nikon DSLRs) with my fast glass and I don't like being stuck at an ~f/2.8-~f/4 effective DOF in the viewfinder with my f/2 (or faster) glass.
    Each technology has it's strengths and weaknesses, it's just that many are reacting to the weaknesses of current EVFs w/o, in many cases, realizing the real positives. Plus lots of the EVFs of a couple mirrorless models ago were not very good, but the most current models are quite good.
     
  75. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    w/o having to resort to the kludge that LiveView is on Nikon DSLRs​
    Why would you consider live view a "kludge"? Live view simply turns a DSLR into a mirrorless camera that only has an LCD but no EVF. That is how DSLRs capture video, and it indeed helps you fine tune your focus. It is just another feature on modern digital SLRs.
    One thing I am certain about is that technology doesn't sit still. It will continue to change our ways to photograph.
     
  76. When I first considered going to mirrorless, the EVF was the thing that turned me off.
    Now that I've been using it exclusively for the better part of a year, I prefer the EVF for many of the reasons John Hinky mentions above.
     
  77. Shun - Yes I consider it a "kludge" (perhaps too strong of a term) due to:
    - Poor screen quality when in live view - very difficult to see in bright light, etc.
    - Line skipping on my D800
    - Lack of articulated screen which would make it so much better to use in the field
    - Major time lag when tripping the shutter when in live view mode
    Though useful for sure (and I do use it), it could be so much better . . . and hopefully will be in the future
     
  78. John, those problems are progressively getting solved. When the D800 came out in early 2012, the current mirrorless options were cameras like the Nex 5n and the E-PL1. Not slouches, by any means, but not the A6000, E-M1 and X-T1 you can get now. (Though the Nex 5n actually remains pretty good by any standards.) The D800 came out at the same time as the Fuji X-Pro1, which is a great camera but not at the level of current options in terms of technical performance in live view. Nikon's most recent options, like those from Fuji, Sony and Olympus, are quite good in live view.
     
  79. John, those problems are not present in all DSLRs; the D810 has better image quality in live view than the D800 (less line skipping and a more detailed image), the D750 also has a tilting screen and both cameras can trip the shutter quite quickly and shoot at higher frame rates also in LV mode. For some reason Nikon's early live view implementations were quite bad.
     
  80. The mirrorless cameras definitly will replace the smaller sensor cameras, but not the DSRL in a short term. The trend is that people want to get better cameras. I myself started with digital with small sensor cameras in 2004: Canon Powershot G6 and then other ones of Canon, Nikon, Panasonic. Later I moved to a bigger sensor with Panasonic Lumix GF1 (great photos in a trip to Europe), and in paralel I was stilll shooting with film.With the small sensor cameras, it was great digital learning (together with the computer process) to finally move to Digital DSLR (DX and FX) in 2011. I published in 2009 a photograph book about Patagonia with mostly pictures from small sensor cameras, and a few slides with F3T, and the book came out in a very fine quality with great CMYK photos published.
    And since the mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses have come out with bigger sensor such as Olympus, Fujifilm, Panasonic, Sony and others, many people will change to this kind of cameras systems. I also have a DSLR system, but I think it is a very good idea to also have one of the latest big sensor mirrorless cameras for profesional work for street photography (you cannot walk all the time with a DSLR system), travel and also professional work when you do not want the hassle to take all the weight of a DSLR system with you. Personally I studied the Olympus and the Fujifilm system, and the perfect camera could be the future Fujifilm X-T2. 16 megapixel is enough for book project.
     

Share This Page