Grokking mirrorless

I think today was the first day that I really understood the appeal of a mirrorless system. I've had an EOS M5 for a while now, but basically shot it like a DSLR, using mostly my EF lenses. It was fine, but I can't say it ever made me feel strongly that it was a better tool than my DLSR (aside from being newer tech).

 

Recently, I've mostly been shooting film in a Bronica SQ, and picked up a nice collection of lenses through the classifieds here. After spending far too much money shooting on a succession of gray days, I decided to go back to digital until the weather improves since digital frames don't cost me $1 or so each.

 

Which brings me to today. I picked up a Fotodiox SQ-EF adapter, and was out shooting today with a Bronica 200/4.5 MF lens connected to the M5 with stacked SQ-EF and EF-EFM adapters, and it all worked just fine. No mental gymnastics to work out exposure or squinting trying to focus through a viewfinder not optimized for MF. All I had to do was configure a live histogram & focus peaking in the EVF and go. Adjusting exposure couldn't have been easier, a focusing was a breeze since all I had to do was wait for my subject to be highlighted in blue.

 

I think I get it now.

Photo club last week, they were shooting a scene lit by a single candle. I was amusing myself shooting handheld portraits at ISO 52,000 (my wife was using my tripod), the only light in the room was one feeble candle and camera displays. Using the EVF, I was able to manual focus and shoot in near total darkness. Results were actually not too bad.

 

Try doing that with an optical viewfinder, I literally couldn't see my hand in front of my face!

See, eventually people do get it. ;-) The DSLR is definitely redundant, and has been for some time. But that's the tech. The experience of a mirrorless camera (or DSLM if you prefer) is what really sells you. The size of a rangefinder but the direct view capability of a reflex. With almost no drawbacks.

 

In fact, no SLR ever shows you what the image will actually look like. But the EVF does.

Steve has already admitted “Results were actually not too bad.” which suggests they were rubbish and why did he bother. That is the most fundamental question about photography of our era.

 

I'll post up a photo once I'm home from work and you can judge for yourself, if the subjects give permission.

 

(French image rights laws are very strict, hence why I almost never post photos of people, despite that being a good 50% of my work)

 

As to why I bother, it amuses me to do so, I often hand out prints to the subjects at the next meeting. I enjoy giving people photos.

In fact, no SLR ever shows you what the image will actually look like. But the EVF does.

 

What nonsense.

 

The DSLR is definitely redundant, and has been for some time.

 

Also nonsense.

1. That avatar picture must be ancient if you still use the word grok
   
2. Someday, sometime, the mirrored camera will be "redundant", but - kemo sabe- that time is not yet, not yet
   

o_O

Ok, making good on my word, or, "this thread is worthless without pics"

 

L wonders if she should have applied more exposure compensation

Fuji X-T2, Hexanon 50/1.4 @ f1.4, 1/5 second, ISO 51,200 camera jpeg

 

No, it's not bitingly sharp, nor brilliantly composed (if I backed up, I'd have tripped over a tripod), but I like it.

 

Anyway, I'll let you be the judge.

 

 

L's shot, in progress at that moment, posted with her permission:

Panasonic GF1, f8, 8sec, ISO100

1. That avatar picture must be ancient if you still use the word grok
   
2. Someday, sometime, the mirrored camera will be "redundant", but - kemo sabe- that time is not yet, not yet
   

o_O

 

Heh - the pic is about a year and half old. The vocabulary represents a childhood spent reading far too much SF for my own good :)

In fact, no SLR ever shows you what the image will actually look like. But the EVF does.

 

What nonsense.

 

The DSLR is definitely redundant, and has been for some time.

 

Also nonsense.

 

The OVF does not actually show what you get...especially if the lens is wide open at f/1.4 for example. Won't show you exposure compensation either. As to being redundant..that is up to personal opinion...and as such what is nonsense for you may be factual for him.

Karim, you talk out of your back passage on almost everything. From pc upgrades to obsolescence.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Progress in digital photography can be quite disorienting. But I'm here to help!

I think Joe's original point has been rather lost...

 

The attraction of mirrorless, at least for me and regardless of other advantages it offers (my post above), is it's simplicity.

 

I don't need to mess with settings, worry about metering, think about depth of field, stress about exposure.

 

I just frame, focus, stop down until I get the depth of field I want, twirl the exposure compensation dial until the image looks the way I want it to and press the button.

 

It's far easier to do than it is to describe and actually easier with fully manual lenses than with auto focus & aperture.

 

I set my white balance to the look I want. I couldn't even tell you what metering pattern I'm using most of the time, it's largely irrelevant, as I just adjust the exposure until it looks right.

 

No messing with grey cards, white cards, light meters...

 

It's beauty is it's simplicity, you can forget about the technical side and just concentrate on making the photos you see.

 

 

Like using a view camera, it's far, far easier to do than it is to describe.

 

In fact, that's how I think of 'mirrorless digital', we've finally gone back to the basics.

 

So, yes, Joe, I see exactly where you're coming from and agree entirely.

Karim's statement was nonsense, because for much of the time an OVF will show the image "correctly". It was a hyperbolic statement (as is his style).

Karim's statement was nonsense, because for much of the time an OVF will show the image "correctly". It was a hyperbolic statement (as is his style).

An OVF, even through a DSLR, shows you the image projected from the lens but does not show you the expected output of the sensor and processor. An EVF can show you that, and a histogram. Very useful, particularly if you shoot jpg.

Well, users of Sony cutting edge equipment might disagree.

Certain "Cutting Edge Features" remove barriers between what you see and what you capture. Because all of the sensing devices are embedded in the image sensor, you don't focus and determine exposure by proxy, as in a DSLR. The camera uses better data to make better decisions. The photographer can concentrate on pointing and poking.

I think I've just grokked what the word grok actually means.

So something gained between all the bickering.

I think I've just grokked what the word grok actually means.

I've heard "stranger" things.

... the shutter release.

If the screen of an SLR or DSLR actually gave a good representation of depth-of-field, I could understand its vehement defence. But it just doesn't. And in most cases the final image is going to be scrutinised and edited on an LCD display anyway. So maybe you have to admit that an EVF does give a truer preview of what your final image is going to look like?

 

However, I really can't understand this heated argument over OVF versus EVF. I probably come down on the side of an EVF, because of its WYSIWYG nature, but I'm really not that fussed as long as I can clearly see the subject through whatever viewfinder the camera has. They both beat squinting at a double-image rangefinder, or holding a dark-cloth over your head, hands down.

There's no heated argument from my side. It was just a rather silly comment from Karim that prodded me to reply. Personally as to viewing DOF in the viewfinder, I don't think there is much in it, since I never can really tell the difference viewing the whole of the image with either an EVF and OVF. The only way I decide is when processing the image later. If I have time to magnify an image on an EVF to investigate the DOF, then I could be using Live View on a DSLR, or I could simply take the shot at a few different apertures and decide later. We all know that f1.4 will give less DOF than f2.8, for example, and I don't need a 100% accurate previsualization to know this. So the idea that somehow having an OVF is redundant is just extreme. I will maintain that an OVF is a more accurate view of the scene in front of the camera, and it gives a better view when shooting 12 fps than 90% of EVFs, but I use both types with no problems.

There's no heated argument from my side. It was just a rather silly comment from Karim that prodded me to reply. Personally as to viewing DOF in the viewfinder, I don't think there is much in it, since I never can really tell the difference viewing the whole of the image with either an EVF and OVF. The only way I decide is when processing the image later. If I have time to magnify an image on an EVF to investigate the DOF, then I could be using Live View on a DSLR, or I could simply take the shot at a few different apertures and decide later. We all know that f1.4 will give less DOF than f2.8, for example, and I don't need a 100% accurate previsualization to know this. So the idea that somehow having an OVF is redundant is just extreme. I will maintain that an OVF is a more accurate view of the scene in front of the camera, and it gives a better view when shooting 12 fps than 90% of EVFs, but I use both types with no problems.

 

Interesting point re high-speed shooting. I'm not likely to shoot 12 frames per hour, much less per second, but I do notice a slight hiccup in the EVF when I shoot that I've just put down to the shutter interrupting the light to the sensor (and thus the image feed to the EVF).

an OVF...it gives a better view when shooting 12 fps than 90% of EVFs

Really?

The transit time of a (d)slr shutter is at least 3 milliseconds - easily double that to include the cocking time, then there's mirror flipping time to add onto that; perhaps conservatively another 20ms up and down. So we've got in the region of 30ms per frame that the optical viewfinder is blinded. That makes (12 x 30)= 360ms of blinded time every 1000ms. Meaning you can't possibly see the subject for well over 1/3rd of the time at 12 FPS.

Being a mechanical limitation, mainly of the relatively heavy mirror, there's very little room for improvement on those figures, whereas the limitation with an EVF comes down to only the shutter.

 

So I'm pretty sure that it won't be too long before an EVF not only allows more FPS, but gives a much more continuous view of the subject while capturing them.

OVFs can't show colour, desaturation, or exposure. They can't warn you of lost highlights either. OVFs are fine, though, and with film cameras we have no choice but to love them for what they are. But I reject outright the notion that progress in digital cameras should be halted.

 

Of course it was obvious long ago that mirrorless would overtake DSLRs. I for one am grateful for that.

A DSLR can’t do 12 FPS unless it’s a D5 or 1DX Mark whatever. My XH1 can, and it’s a $999 camera (extra batteries and grip included)

My OMD can do 20 fps, Does that mean your XH1 is "redundant"?

If the Canon 1D X Mark III Is This Good

My OMD can do 20 fps, Does that mean your XH1 is "redundant"?

If the Canon 1D X Mark III Is This Good

No. I’m not one who’s calling things “redundant” (despite apparently not knowing what that word means). WRT a 1DXiii, I’m sure it’s very nice, and if you are in the market for a 3 pound, $6500 camera it should certainly be on your short list.