How mature is mirrorless technology?

I'm considering "going mirrorless". In

particular I feel a call to Sony's Alpha7II, mainly

because I have a lot of full-frame Nikon glass that maybe I could use on it. Apart from loss of AF, any reason why not? I would probably convert to compatible glassware over time, as funds allow.

 

My previous experience with mirrorless is through

a variety of bridge cameras. No problem with using

an EVF or rear screen. In fact some of my better

composed pictures have been taken with bridges.

However those cameras generally lacked response, and battery life could be better.

 

So how do users find the latest generation of

"serious" mirrorless cameras. Do you think they're a mature technology yet? Or do we have some way

to go?

 

Maybe you feel there's room for improvement and I should wait for the A7III or some such to be announced?

 

Also, what's support for non-dedicated and off-camera flash like? (I hate that stupid Minolta/Sony non-standard hotshoe BTW)

<p>Quite mature I guess but I don't think there is a camera that's suited for all occasions. There are different needs when you shoot for the web or sports or full blown posters. Mirrorless fits into this equation, they have their strengths and weaknesses. As long as you realize this and see if it fits your needs they are ok.</p>

<p>With regard of the hotshoe, hasn't Sony gone back to the standard one with a contact in the middle?</p>

 

<p>As you say, you have a lot of Nikon lenses, and I assume that you like these lenses because you still want to use them. In that case, I would choose a Nikon DSLR because it is the best fit for your lenses, and a Nikon DSLR is not much more expensive than the A7II. It is like my case, I like the Pentax K lenses and that's why I use Pentax DSLR even though the lens can be used in some way on other cameras.</p>

<p>I don't like the design of Sony cameras but I assume that you do. In that case I would use the lenses that best fit for the Sony's cameras.</p>

<p>I think mirrorless is a "mature" technology. For Sony you would eventually want to get Sony lenses and flash, same with Fuji and Olympus systems. For Canon the latest mirrorless M5 apparently works well with older EF and EF-S lens and flashes but it's a crop model, </p>

 

<p>Absolutely. DSLRs still have some strengths in niche areas, but that won't be for long. All but high-end DSLRs should be dead by now, but buying habits lag behind technological progress. Still, everyone has their tastes, and the market caters to those tastes.</p>

<p>The day will come when integrated cameras like the RX10 can replace system cameras for the press, such as those assigned to cover the Olympic games. It sounds ludicrous, but then nobody believed the rumours that the A7s was to have a maximum ISO of 400,000.</p>

<p>Me, I have not updated my NEX bodies recently. The newest camera I own is an NEX-6. I had an A7 but I sold it as I rarely used it. I personally like the APS-C (half-frame) sensor with 135 format SLR lenses. Some like to use a Speedbooster or some other type of focal length reducer, but I don't. If I had to shoot, say, football, or birds, I'd first go for the A6500, then perhaps the OM-D E-M1 II.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what my next camera will be. A6500? E-M1 II? XT-2? TL? So much choice. </p>

<p>I would say the autofocus on my Fuji XT10 is not quite as good as it is my Nikon D50 but very close.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>going mirrorless". In particular I feel a call to Sony's Alpha7II</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you think the A7II can do that, for example, a Nikon D750 can't? What are the advantages you expect? Just the 200g loss in weight (at least partially eaten up by the extra batteries you most certainly will need to carry)? Is video important to you? Unless you are indeed planning to exchange your lenses, you seem to me to lose more than you could possibly gain.</p>

<p>I have seriously contemplated a move from Nikon to Sony when the A7 was released. I have since come to the conclusion that the grass isn't greener on that side of the fence and that such a move gains me less than I stand to lose. I have an A7 that I use with some manual focus M-mount lenses, and recently added two Sony FE lenses to the bag to add utility to the system. I have not and will not adapt my Nikon lenses though and have no plans on extending the Sony system further.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>from loss of AF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At least one adapter is now out there that enables AF of Nikon AF-S lenses on a Sony E-mount cameras though they seem to be some distance away from maturity.</p>

<p>In terms of handling, I find it quite difficult to adapt from using a Nikon DSLR to using a Sony mirrorless; getting used to the Sony AF setup still is my biggest challenge. I only have a first generation A7, so things have likely improved with the A7II.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>should wait for the A7III or some such to be announced</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most definitely as I fully expect a A7III to be announced in 2017 - and a D750 successor as well.</p>

<p>Re: flash. I don't like that proprietary interface either and purchased one Sony flash, ended up never using it and eventually sold it. AFAIK, one needs to resort to third party radio triggers to get a decent off-camera flash system set up.</p>

<p>My transition from Nikon to Sony is complete, and I'm not looking back. There are some things a DSLR does better than the Sony A7, but not things that are essential to the situations I deal with. On the other hand, I find the Sony's in-body image stabilization (IBIS) and silent shutter (A7Rii) of utmost importance. Focusing, both manual and automatic, is superior in the Sony, and the total weight of my "kit" to do the same things is 40% less than with the Nikon. Twice the resolution of a flagship Nikon (more, considering there is no AA filter), is a bonus feature, moving well into medium format territory. If I did sports and action photos, my choice might be different, and my needs are not necessarily your needs.</p>

<p>Single-servo focusing is just as fast in the Sony as Nikon. Where Nikon excels is in continuous focusing and tracking. Tracking is held back in the Sony due to engineering decisions, easily fixed in firmware. Nikon has a faster continuous frame rate, 12 v 5, but Sony easily compensates with 4K video, which captures 10 MP images at 60/sec.</p>

<p>With adapters, it is easy to use Nikon lenses on the Sony. Some adapters allow auto-focusing with AF-S lenses and aperture control with G and E diaphragms. I started out using my existing Leica and Nikon lenses, but have now replaced them with Sony/Zeiss equivalents. Dedicated lenses let me use automation features on the Sony, and are generally smaller, lighter and have much better image quality than DSLR lenses. The need for such a long back focus in a DSLR imposes compromises in optical and mechanical design that are only partially overcome. It is important to note that you can use legacy lenses with good results. You don't have to start from scratch.</p>

<p>You can use a Nikon flash on the Sony A7, without any special adapter. It's mostly manual, although you can use the flash's built-in photocell for automatic exposure. I used my Sony for over a year before buying a dedicated flash. The high ISO capability and wide dynamic range works exceptionally well under natural light. However there are times a flash is best. A dedicated flash is highly automated and works even better than the Nikon system (on Nikon), which is saying a lot. My radio triggers work directly on the flash shoe. I alway use manual flash for off-camera and multiple unit work. It's far easier to use a flash meter and a few test shots than to fiddle with TTL. Sony did release a TTL system last year, but I'm not interested.</p>

<p>A mirrorless camera with an electronic viewfinder places a lot more demand on the battery than a DSLR, which is largely passive. Furthermore the batteries are smaller, 1050 MaH compared to over 5000. In practice, I get about 2 hours or 300 images per charge. Batteries weigh all of 12 grams, so carrying a few extras is not a big deal. At $50 each for Sony brand (half that for no-name), they aren't a financial burden either. For extended use, I can power the A7Rii through its USB port. This is useful for extended video shooting or event portraits. I can run all day (> 8 hours) using a 20,000 MaH battery pack, with room to spare.</p>

<p>I find the Sony A7 series to be wonderful cameras. Top-notch image quality. Super adaptable to manual focus lenses. Great native glass. I have zero regrets leaving my Nikon D800 and Canon 5D MkIII DSLR systems behind for my personal work. The light and compact nature means I carry it more. This is no small advantage. My very first impressions of the A7 are <a href="/digital-camera-forum/00cTKu">HERE</a></p>

<p>I use six manual focus SLR Nikkors with my A7. For my kind of work (no sports) they are adequate. The flash I use with the A7 is an Olympus FL-36, which has a sensor of its own. I use an extension cord for off camera work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Batteries weigh all of 12 grams</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward. your scale needs calibration; the Sony A7 battery (NP-FW50) is 42g. And, as already established in previous threads, your claimed 40% reduction in weight going from Nikon to Sony does not take into account the boat anchor and kitchen sink that were in your Nikon bag and didn't make it into the Sony one and certainly did not compare apples to apples.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At $50 each for Sony brand (half that for no-name), they aren't a financial burden either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not that Nikon's EL-EN15 is any more expensive (or larger), it just lasts about 4-5 times as long. You are probably thinking of the larger Nikon EN-EL18 for Nikon's pro-level bodies (and some external battery grips). I had one non-Sony battery and recently had to throw it out when it started to swell and was hard and insert and remove from the battery chamber. Not taking the risk with third-party batteries anymore.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dedicated lenses ... are generally smaller, lighter ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some are and some aren't. And for some, I can't shake the feeling that they are still the large-flange-distance designs and not specifically designed for the smaller one of the mirrorless bodies.</p>

 

<p>No maturity in mirrorless cameras regarding battery life lets hope! We can beat this up all day as its hard pressed to find a list of reasons not to go mirrorless. The energy and resources pouring into mirrorless is obvious as the advances have become a spectator sport in of itself. Amazing the rapidity of features in tech from release to release. The reasons for eliminating the mirror have been a known, known for how many years now? The mirror, I think will find its way to obsolescence.</p>

<p>My scale is correct, my memory was not. Still an extra 200 grams is not a deal-breaker. With regards to Nikon, my only frame of reference is a series of pro-level bodies, starting with a D1x. With regard to total weight, I used my postal scale.</p>

<p>My Nikon "kit" consisted of a 17-25/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 300/4, a D3 body, flash and miscellaneous brackets and hardware. Together with the backpack, it weighs 30-35 pounds, depending on the deployment. I carry what I feel I need, based on what I have needed in the past.</p>

<p>My Sony kit consists of an A7Rii, A7ii, 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 (a useful boat anchor), 70-200/4, Loxia 35/2, Loxia 50/2, Basis 25/2, Basis 85/1.8, flash and miscellaneous brackets and gadgets, weighing just over 20 pounds. Much of the savings is selecting f/4 zoom lenses rather than f/2.8, supplemented by fast primes. F/2.8 zooms are necessarily large and heavy, with little difference between the mirrorless and DSLR variety. The small ThinkTank backpack fits easily under the seat in an airline, whereas the larger Nikon kit only in the overhead.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So how do users find the latest generation of "serious" mirrorless cameras. Do you think they're a mature technology yet? Or do we have some way to go?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> For me, it's not about the technology, it's about the glass. And Fuji has it over Sony. And Nikon for that matter. My Fuji 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140 zooms are better than my equivalent Nikon trinity set of zooms in terms of sharpness and image stabilization. The Fuji 56 f1.2 and 90 f2 are top notch primes! Fuji has been making lenses for some of the biggest names in cine and still photography for decades. <br /> <br /> I finally tested the waters with the Fuji x-t1 a year ago and it soon became my main camera. If I needed faster AF or my mini-studio with Nikon sb speedlights and pocket wizard tt5 ac3 system, then I would revert back to a Nikon dlsr. I've now had the x-t2 since Sept and the AF is faster than all my Nikons and consequently have started selling off my Nikon gear. I keep one Nikon dslr simply because I sometimes have to set up three sb speedlights into softboxes for a location portrait. It wont be long though before Fuji catches up in the ttl flash dept. <br /> <br /> I don't shoot jpg but apparently they are the best SOOC jpgs on the market. The raws from the the Fuji take less massaging in post than the dull flat Nikon nefs do. Customer service with Fuji is outstanding and there is almost no need for a Fuji Pro Service as more time is spent in transit than actually at Fuji. This is amazing and I'm not used to that turnaround. This can not be said for Sony. Or Nikon. The wifi app for Fuji to Android phones is brilliant compared to anything else I've used. Sometimes I have to put my camera in sensitive areas with sensitive people so I put it on a tripod, walk away, open my phone, and I get live view on my phone. I can control almost all functions of the camera and with the silent electronic shutter, everyone is happy! So you've asked if the technology is here yet? In my opinion, not only is it here, but it has surpassed Nikon and Canon.</p>

<p>From reading Rodeo Joe's original post, I get the impression that he is only considering full frame but I may be wrong about that. If indeed the case, then the only mirrorless options are Leica and Sony and the latter is the only one mentioned. Staying within the realm of Sony vs Nikon, the decision is not as clear cut as many make it appear here (by comparing to APS-C or even m4/3 mirrorless). IMHO there is very little gained by moving from FX Nikon to a Sony A7 camera IF one doesn't also change the lenses (like Edward did). <br>

With regard to APS-C (DX), things are different as Nikon doesn't provide even a modicum of DX lenses whereas Fuji and Sony have a couple more lenses to choose from. Adapting Nikon FX lenses to DX bodies already brings up issues, doing it with non-Nikon cameras doesn't make much sense to me (given that Nikon has quite good DX camera bodies).</p>

With each generation it would seem that any inherent limitations are either resolved or ameliorated. Remember that Moore's law in mirrorless also applies. If something can be fixed with software it will be fixed and that seems to be the way of things with mirrorless. We thought that a glass prism viewfinder was the only way to go and now OLEDs and the processing speed has made them even better. And seeing all we need in the finder has been a joy. Hard to go back to the pentaprism mirror combination. Live view is so nice. I would say it is time to try mirrorless as so many of us have, RJ.

I would only be interested in a full-frame body,

which eliminates Fuji (for the present), despite the

excellent reputation of its lenses and build-quality.

Although I have reservations about their pointless

tinkering with sensor geometry, while retaining the

crazy surplus of green sensors - just like a Bayer

matrix.

 

I'm not sure how the resolution of the A7ii is made

out to be remarkably greater than my D800. Maybe

by 10% or so, and that would be very lens

dependant. However I'm interested to hear that

adapters are available that retain AF and auto-aperture. That's gratifying news.

 

I must admit to being grossly dissatisfied with

Nikon's AF performance. It seems to miss more

than it hits, unless you chance on a lucky

combination of lens and camera body. AF fine-tune is just a fudge to overcome manufacturing sloppiness IMO.

 

Nikon's VR is nothing to shout about either, and that's becoming more important to me as I get older and more shaky. Any drop in equipment weight is also welcome.

 

All that said, my main interest in mirrorless is

because I see it as a more logical use of digital

sensors, with no need for a cumbersome moving

mirror/gg screen and pentaprism to place restrictions on metering, AF and lens

design. As well as introducing added vibration and

limiting frame rate. While the added mechanical complexity must compromise reliability.

 

Since I find myself using my DSLRs in Live View mode about half the time, it seems a logical step to "pare down" the mechanics of the camera to only what I find essential. But as a long-time SLR and DSLR user I'm a bit apprehensive about jumping ship to mirrorless.

<p>I've been using mirrorless for years now, with an EVF on about half of the cameras I've bought. For the first time, with my Olympus OM-D MD5 II (which replaced my original MD5), the EVF is as good as it needs to be, which, for me, means as good as an SLR.</p>

<p>So, for me, mirrorless is now mature. (As Thom Hogan says, mirrorless and SLR aren't two different kinds of cameras. Only their viewing systems are different.)</p>

<p>I looked very hard at Sony A7 mirrorless last time I bought a Canon 5D body. Clearly the weight/size reduction is limited if I continued to use my satisfactory f4 Canon L zooms, plus whatever adapter is necessary to secure similar operation the those lenses on the 5D.</p>

<p>The surprising thing was that the dedicated Sony zoom lenses weigh as much as my Canons. By the time I bought the new lenses, new filters, rings etc and whatever RRS might want to sell me so I can continue to use my tripod head with a Sony, you could be looking at the most expensive small scale weight and size reduction you could ever imagine. </p>

<p>Of course I'm not valuing the increased resolution terribly highly. That's because I'm not unhappy where I am and also because Canon have places I could go on the 5D to achieve that without any lens changes at all. What I really wanted was a significant weight and size drop without losing quality or functionality, to keep me carrying a quality camera system around for another 5 years or so, and at a total cost to change that is reasonable in the context of what I got from it. And I concluded I wasn't going to get those with the current Sony lens offer. </p>

<p>You obviously get different views of lightness and size depending where you start out. I note that Edward has a Sony system weighing over 20lbs. My bag with a FF Dslr and zooms already weighs less than that. But he started out with large and heavy Nikon zooms and a fistful of primes. I didn't, so I'm going to be harder to please. </p>

 

<p>Nothing wrong with full frame, just as there's nothing wrong with Fuji X-Trans APS-C. The obvious weight issue advantage lies within Fuji and if one is interested in staring at hundreds of images for hours comparing Fuji X-Trans imagery next to full frame imagery, you would come to the conclusion that Fuji has the edge, I have. Now that Fuji has made it loud and clear with the release of their, 23mm F2, 35mm F2, and recently the 50mm F2, lens weight is a slam dunk. I see a theme and purpose for what Fuji is doing and I think their on the right path. I've heard their firmware is bunk, I think the comment is bunk. So far the only thing I don't get with Fuji is, what camera is their flagship camera, the XT-2, or the XPRO-2? or are they even interested in that concept. I don't know, but when thinking in terms of Mirrorless technology and its maturity, Fuji pops up as the one that has lead and made the most of the overall solution.</p>

<p>The A7ii is 24 MP and has an AA filter. I think the D800, at 36 MP with an AA filter would have higher resolution, except legacy Nikon lenses don't keep pace. Tha A7Rii is 42 MP and no AA filter, clearly surpassing either one in resolution.</p>

<p>AF in the Sony has a theoretical edge in accuracy over that of a DSLR. The focus sensors are embedded in the Sony sensor (399 in the A7Rii), an inherently co-planar. AF is accomplished by separate sensors in a DSLR, subject to errors in alignment, hence the provisions for fine tuning in software.</p>

<p>While f/2.8 zooms are inherently large and heavy, I have found that f/4 zooms work very well on the Sony, at a substantial savings in size and weight. Short primes (50 mm and smaller) are much smaller for the Sony and their DSLR counterparts, which are generally inverted telephoto design. The Sony 24-70/2.8 is the outlier. Sony does not have an f/4 version worthy of consideration. The f/2.8 lens is as good as any prime for the Sony in that focal length range. I use it most of the time, more than any other lens. When I want to travel light, the Loxia 35/2 (manual) is my usual choice.</p>

<p>I have nothing against Fuji gear, but I don't have any and can't speak from experience. I leave that to others.</p>

<p>Mature enough. I'm using Fuji X-Pro2 and like it very very much.</p>

Is this really the layout of Fuji's X-trans sensor?

 

https://www.fujifilm.eu/fileadmin/products/DigitalCameras/ProSeries/FinePixXPro1/features/img/x-

array.jpg

 

If so, how the heck does that work? The whole point of the Bayer array is that a single photosite step in any direction gives a neighbouring 4 cell cluster of RGGB sensors to be processed; effectively yeilding a detail resolution one photosite small.

 

Looking at the X-trans array as shown, it's obvious there are clusters of 4 adjacent green sensors that can yield nothing but green information and therefore no interpolated detail - madness!

 

I'm sure that can't be the true geometry. Can it? Surely that diagram's been made up by some numpty in Fuji's marketing department.

<p>This might be of interest, Joe<br>

<br />http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2015/11/what-makes-fujis-x-trans-sensor-unique-an-excerpt-from-my-fuji-x-trans-lightroom-processing-guide-booklet</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing wrong with full frame, just as there's nothing wrong with Fuji X-Trans APS-C. The obvious weight issue advantage lies within Fuji and if one is interested in staring at hundreds of images for hours comparing Fuji X-Trans imagery next to full frame imagery, you would come to the conclusion that Fuji has the edge, I have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Me too, Don. I'm loving this 24mp x-trans III.</p>

<p>I have a couple of Nissin di700a flash guns and the Air Command unit. They work very well TTL with my A7 (i) off camera e.g. for macro. Each has a drop down diffusion grid which does a good job.</p>