How mature is mirrorless technology?

That was stated a couple of years ago and since then the rate of evolution within mirrorless has exploded! There is a strong belief system underway for mirrorless that driven by a couple of dynamics; Size, weight, portability, image quality or impact, and a unpretentiousness. Compact camera's made their way because of their ease of transport, mirrorless is the answer to those requiring more IQ for Professional applications. So there's a top down, bottom up sensibility of mirrorless that has got the attention of the photo enthusiast. Some are referring this to, "Hype," my take is, " the attractiveness of logistics." We can thank the link to rangefinder camera's to the birth of mirrorless.

 

Mature, for me, means it will be at the Olympics, NBA, and race tracks. If it is not, it is therefore still in its infancy. Or adolescence.

 

Take a look at the photos posted at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255248?b=2 . Many of the photos are impressive. If you have good full frame Nikon glass, losing AF is a big sacrifice. Maybe if you make the switch, go all the way, buy a A7rii and get that high resolution sensor and sell your Nikon glass and get Zeiss glass. While the Zeiss glass is expensive, look at the photos in the website I referenced and make your own decision.

Good luck with whatever you decide..

 

Been using mirrorless and haven't been "losing AF".

 

I still feel the choice in the mirrorless field is quite limited. Fairly low-res APS size sensors from Fuji (whom I feel aren't being totally honest about the sensor technology they use), or high-res full-frame from Sony. I think I'll wait and see what a few more months brings.

I'm in no hurry. My Nikon DSLRs are serving me well at present.

I'm not sure why this thread seems to have turned into a Fuji versus the rest warzone either.

 

Doesn't seem to be a Fuji vs the rest, but you are just making statements that don't make sense such as 24 MP (Fuji's sensor res) is a "Fairly low-res APS size sensors. . ." I think 24 MP is the current high spot on all APC sized sensors. If you think you should wait, then you should. If you like the Sony AR7 II, for IQ, look at some of the images Louis M. makes on his. They are incredible, and I haven't seen any full frame sensor camera really match what he can get (at least for web sized) on his Sony.

 

A friend purchase the Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4 for his A7 II yesterday. Hardly any space for my fingers between the lens and the grip. Very much prefer to use the D810 with Nikon 16-35 instead, even if a bit heavier than the Sony combo (not all that much though) and certainly a bit larger (which I consider an advantage in this case). <br><br>
Since I had a couple of old cameras and lens depreciating on the shelf, and before the original A7's trade-in value drops to new lows (once the A7 III is announced), I took advantage of the current discount and trade-in bonus to upgrade to the A7 II. Will find out in the next few days how much of an upgrade it really is.

 

Quite happy with Sony mirrorless, both APS and full frame. Autofocus on the A6000 is very good, MF works well with focus peaking. Zeiss lenses are terrific, Sony lenses have image stabilization. I think this technology is mature and ready for serious use. I'll keep using DSLR for long-lens work, but mirrorless for most everything else.

 

"Mature, for me, means it will be at the Olympics, NBA, and race tracks. If it is not, it is therefore still in its infancy. Or adolescence"

OK, mature = professional
maybe it's the lens that's important
for the rest of us with day jobs mirrorless has arrived

 

"I think 24 MP is the current high spot on all APC sized sensors. " - Exactly! That's low-res compared to the 36, 42 or 50 megapixels that are becoming the norm for full-frame sensors.

The Sony A7rii is a full-frame sensor camera. In that context, how are my statements not making sense?

Any way you cut it. APS-C just can't compete on sheer IQ with a larger sensor. I've ruled DX sized sensors out of my equation. So can we drop that debate please?

 

Well OK, so what your saying is generally APC is basically lower res than FF sensors. OK, that doesn't mean they are low res. To me, that's actually fairly hi res. especially when you consider the camera's use. If you are hand holding for street, event or sports the ultra high res cameras are going to start to hurt you because you will just about need a tripod to get their full max benefit and it will be easy to get unsatisfying results when shooting fast.

 

It seems that if the camera doesn't have the highest in MP your not interested. Get the highest MP camera then, problem solved!

 

Every time I hear this, I'm reminded of that hilarious
Zack Arias "crop vs. crap" video

 

Pixel count is not the be-all and end-all, as we all know. If you're doing high-end work, of course you probably should use a MFD kit - even an outdated one. I'm very happy with APS-C sensors, and in fact the new Fujis are better than most 'full frame' DSLRs.

Edit: Actually the new crop (pun intended) of Micro 4/3 cameras are brilliant. They could easily replace bigger cameras for news photography.

 

'Every time I hear this, I'm reminded of that hilarious Zack Arias "crop vs. crap" video'

Some sane perspective, thanks Eric

 

You're very welcome, uhooru

 

So, I started with a Speed Graphic now I shoot digital Nikons. The technology is always evolving. It ultimately comes down to the ability of the photographer to visualize and compose the shot.

 

Well, I think Zack Arias' opinion is negligible or "neg-lidge-able" in his own words.

Just use your eyes. Full-frame beats crop. Full stop, end of. For other reasons than pure megapixels. Bokeh, for one. There's a greater leap in the "look" of full-frame versus APS than there is in going from full-frame to a 44x33mm sensor. Leaving aside the ridiculous cost of so-called medium format digital.

APS and smaller formats have their place for reasons of greater DoF and inbuilt magnification. If I'm doing macro or telephoto, then a smaller format is definitely what I'm going to reach for. For sheer quality I'd rather go up a size thanks.

What I don't need is a flipping mirror, that's all.

So it seems that mirrorless technology might be more mature than the snide attitude of some of its users.

 

After five pages of discussion, it appears that you actually felt the call of the A7RII since it seems to be all about more pixels. If you indeed plan on using your Nikon glass, then there will be only a very slight (one pound or thereabouts) savings in weight and you should see some image improvements over the D800 you have. Given that both the D810 and the A7RII will likely see a replacement in 2017, it seems best to actually wait and see.

 

Just evaluate your needs and wants in a camera and pick one out. If your taking family and hobby photos then most camera's would be fine. Just find one that looks nice and has enough buttons and menu's to keep you fiddling around with it and go buy it. Sony, Olympus, Fuji and others are all fine for general photography needs.