Why Mirrorless Rocks Complilation

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by leslie_cheung, Mar 6, 2012.

  1. I'm sure people know that I'm partial to small cameras. But what is so great about mirrorless besides the smaller size? Let's put a list together, okay? I'm using mirrorless in a broad range including phone cams. I'll start...
    1. Ubiquity: This helps often especially street shooting. If I want to be hip and get noticed, I'll bring out the widelux or F2AS maybe even buy a roll of film;)
    2. No more that crappy dust/dirt on the focusing screen crap
    3. I can frame precisely either in 4:3, 3:2, 1:1, 16:9 at the push of a dial or via menus
  2. OK, coffee can wait for a few moments...
    IQ- Image Quality. Current larger image sensors (m4/3, APSc, ...), and their attendant electronics, offer better dynamic range, detail and better higher ISO images.
    DOF- Depth Of Field - greater selective focus capability from larger sensors.
    (Re-)Use of old lenses- Current AF lenses can be great, but many old MF lenses produce much better images.
  3. I've been enjoying m4/3 lately. Size is a big factor, and then there's cost (there are a couple of Olympus models that
    are only about 2 years old but very inexpensive - I picked up the E-PL1 2 lens kit for $400). But the biggest one for
    me is, use of my Minolta manual focus glass without optics in the adapter. A few of the lenses are just amazing on
  4. Oh joy, another, fanboy, pissing contest thread!
  5. What exactly is a fanboy pissing contest thread, Bruce? FWIW this thread isn't brand specific...
  6. Okay, if it's more appropriate...this thread is for discussing advantages of mirrorless cameras. I am sure most know reflex's advantages already. Bruce, you are welcome to join, of course. If not, don't piss here. Start up your own freaking thread:)
  7. Easier focusing with manual focus lenses
    Easier metering with manual focus lenses
    Darn good video.
    Tool of choice for macro work. No MLU needed
  8. I keep thinking about a nice M6 classic but you know the money is an issue with kids in college. Just have to wait a few years. However I would like to goin the mirrorless world. Until then I will just keep shooting the F100. I must admit my focusing screen does not have a dust problem. If it did I could just take it out and clean it.
  9. I have a camera bag with three lenses, an EVF, upgrade flash that weighs 3.5 pounds as opposed to my Canon bag that weighs about twenty pounds. I means that I carry it much more often.
    If I go out with a pancake and just the body it weighs 11 ounces.
    This light weight camera produces images co-equal to my 5D including high ISO performance.
    I now do more than eighty per cent of my photography with this camera.
    I can shoot with one hand with it.
    The software is more capable in terms of face recognition, Anti motion blur (combining pictures to produce excellent high ISO pictures), panoramas, ten frames per second, etc.
    People don't notice it on the street. The LCD can be used like a MF waist level finder and that combined with its relatively small size make it stealthy.
    It has focus peaking and enlarges the pictures in the EVF while manual focusing.
    I could say more but it also has its drawbacks. I have shot some action with it but when I shoot sports I go to my DSLR for focus tracking and faster telephotos in low light.
    The LCD and EVF show depth of field and actual exposure as opposed to an optical VF which does not. This is because the the LCD and EVF take their information from the sensor rather than a mirror.
    It is just more convenient all around. My particular camera has the same Sony sensor used in OEM DSLRs and the print quality at 13x19 is indistinguishable from my DSLR. So guess which camera I take when not pressed for only what an L lens can give.
    Below taken with a point and shoot. Ugly.
  10. Good responses, but they've all overlooked what I consider to be the biggest draw to small cameras:
    They're fun!
    (Not that large cameras aren't fun... but it's a different kind of fun. It's like driving a big SUV vs. driving a go-cart.)
  11. For my landscapes there are 4 advantages: light weight of either a camera + one lens or a lens kit covering a good range of fl (huge advantage for long mountain days, and of course a lighter tripod is OK too); big dof; encourages play (this may sound daft, but if I want to try camera movement blurs, soft focus, etc etc it seems very natural on a M43); and excellent for close-ups (let's say anything from 0.2 - 2 metres across) where the contrast is limited (here the IQ difference between FX and M43 seems to me at its smallest). Unfortunately there are disadvantages too from the smaller sensor - limited dynamic range, and more obvious noise, are the big two. So as ever, it's compromise - but what a compromise!
  12. I may have missed it, but what about "lack of mirror". The lack of a mirror slap is huge and leads to sharper images both on tripod and slower handheld shutter speeds.
  13. >>> But what is so great about mirrorless besides the smaller size? Let's put a list together, okay?

    4. My mirrorless camera in addition to taking great pictures, can also take notes, record voices (including the ones in my head), show my
    position on a map, take/display reminders and appointments, postprocess images, show photo portfolios
    to people on the street, find the correct bus to go from point a to b showing real-time bus positioning,
    browse the web, play music, supports texting, checks weather forecasts, find the best gas prices locally,
    do email, buy crap from amazon, and take/make phone calls.
  14. I know the M4/3 is the goods for me, I don't need a Canikon type War to try and diswade me :)
    Sorry Leslie [ what's the sign for going down on my knees seeking forgiveness?]
  15. I have in mind only MILCs, not phones - the advantage of phone cameras is portability by far.
    Some advantages vs DSLRs come directly from design - from dropping the mirror:
    - No need for mirror up, silent shutter, faster burst rates, ability to have smaller bodies (implying in turn portability), less calibration issues impacting AF (but slower AF for now too)
    - EVF vs OVF with all the extra helpful functionality it brings
    - With shorter registration distance designs, there are interesting opportunities for getting more compact wide angle lenses (portability again)
    Some advantages are there for MILCs today, but they could make their way into DSLRs in the future (via improvements to LiveView operation):
    - Manual focusing aids
    - Ability to visualize DOF, WB, and exposure effects before taking a shot
    I don't see sensor size as a difference because there are several systems based around APS-C sensors and the MFT sensor format is pretty close to that sensor size too. We will probably see FF sensors too in due time, but FF sensors are already representing just a tiny percentage of the overall camera sales and that won't change any time soon.
  16. There are zero advantages if one does not consider size. (My Nikon D700 has no mirror slap
    when I shoot using live view with the mirror up.)

    If one does consider size, the advantages are huge (!). Just got my 2nd m4/3 camera (G3) after
    several years of enjoying my E-P1.
  17. Mirrorless rocks because it sells well and that's about all!
  18. Nevermind. I'll take my mirrorless thoughts elsewhere...
  19. Sadly Leslie that is what you get for starting this kind of thread :)
    Instead of saying what people like, some take it as an invitation to say what is wrong with the item :-(
  20. Yeah...too bad. It's like saying I like Igor Stravinsky therefore I can't like the Sex Pistols...
  21. I think it gives more choice. Can it compete with my Canons for high ISO, sports or landscape (full frame) - NO but it is
    not bad. My favorite mirror less bodies are my Contax and Leica rangefinders (including an M8) where the IQ is great and
    the manual feel and big viewfinder beat the DSLRs. That said my G1 (Panasonic M4/3) allows me to use lots of lenses
    and is cheaper than the alternatives. Maybe one day I will add a Sony NEX7 or Fuji X1Pro. I think mirror less is good
    because it is a different set of trade offs (AF, size, IQ, price, viewfinder, handling). It is not a panacea however indeed no
    camera is - even Leica has issues (mainly price, lens range and limitations of a manual approach)
  22. Nobody take you seriously so you can be unobtrusive-unless, of course, you want to be taken seriously.
  23. I used to work with Leicas many years ago and I had forgotton how small a camera they are when I saw I think it was an 'M' a few nights ago. Definitely smaller than my G3 and 014140.
    My memory tells me that the M is larger than the IIIC etc I used.Or maybe it just looks bigger because of the squarish build?
  24. I don't know first hand why "mirrorless rocks" but I intend to find out later this year. The Sony Nex 7 appeals to me with it's relatively small size and ability to take a variety of lenses.
    I'm thinking that if the image quality of these little things is what it appears to be, they may very well be the ideal cameras for air travel.
  25. Mirrorless is evolution. Stravinsky-to-Sex Pistols is as well (although I know Igor's Rite of Spring and Firebird but nothing from the latter). Not quite a new species yet, but it seems to be pulling the entire industry awake, even the two biggest dogs, finally (reluctantly?), within the past few months.
    Canon digital-EOS/EF-mount revived interest in many old MF brands when it was discovered that their lenses could readily be mounted on its DSLRs, and I still regularly use my bodies as much in Alt-MF mode as with EF-AF optics. Mirrorless has expanded our options to another magnitude of old lenses further as experimenters dig out dusty candidates and quickly broadcast their findings. Panasonic, Sony, Samsung and others did not have a significant place in this craft and technology until the past few years, and I believe we have significant benefits from their entry.
    This is an invigorating time for us and for photography. That rocks!
  26. I like my digital point and shoot for its one handed shooting. With one hand I can hold the camera over my head, adjust the zoom setting and then trip the shutter. (It's a Nikon Coolpix S9100) . I can set it to "burst mode" so I have 12 shots taken in rapid succession to later examine and to choose from.
  27. Here's a Nokia promo video of the PureView 808 rocking out - literally.


    I bookmarked the middle, so you only have to listen for 25 seconds.
  28. We all have are choices of what we prefer to use. Often it comes at a price of not being the best or well suited in some other situation .
    It would be nice if one particular camera offered us the best of all worlds but I don’t see how that would be possible.
    Instead of bashing each others comments and pissing each other off. (As I am sure I have done)
    Wouldn’t it be better if we made no comment, if are only reason to reply was to insult.
    With that stated in response to the original post.
    If I want to be hip and get noticed, I'll bring out the widelux or F2AS maybe even buy a roll of film;)
    If that is you’re intention to be hip and get noticed when using a film camera, then that is you’re choice. But Its defiantly not the purpose for most of us film users.
    No more that crappy dust/dirt on the focusing screen crap​
    I don’t seem to get a big problem with that. Dust and dirt can get ondigital sensors also, that’s why there are self cleaning sensors and sensor cleaning kits available.
    With my comment being said it is not meant to insult. (Just an opinion)
    Mirrorless cameras do look appealing and would like to own one. They offer lens choice, manual focus with metering ,compactness and a wide range of features in a small package.
    I am using a heavy camera that comes with mirror lock up.
    It works well and don’t mind the weight but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like a Mirrorless camera.
  29. Leslie said:
    1. Ubiquity . . .​
    Absolutely. The number-one reason for buying one--I (almost) always have it with me. That was the whole point of buying a mirrorless ILC. I simply can't carry a DX body to work--it's just too bulky, and gets in the way of my "real" camera (I shoot television). I waited months for dealers to get the 16mm f/2.4 pancake lens in stock, after first buying my Samsung NX200 way back in November of 2011. I finally got the wide-angle pancake a few weeks ago, and only just began using my camera (I had zero interest in shooting with the un-bundleable kit lens, a slow 18-55mm). So, I'll second Leslie's first point . . .
    1. Ubiquity.
    I also definitely wanted an APS-C sized sensor, and a system that offered fast pancake lenses. The NX200 is very photographer-friendly in its operation. Although I think the Sony 5N is a better low-light performer, Samsung has more lens offerings, especially, pancakes. Since 24mm is one of my favorite full-frame focal lengths, I also definitely wanted a 24mm-equivalent in an ILC. The NX-mount 16mm f/2.4 is all I ever have on my NX200. The only other lens I want, though ridiculously priced, and certainly not a pancake, is the $999 Samsung 85mm f/1.4. Well, that, and a re-freshed 30mm f/2.0 pancake, with i-Function.
  30. 2. They're fun!
    (I think someone already said this.)
  31. I would like at least 14-bit sensors.
    Maybe then we can seriously ask
    whether or not the mirrorless camera
    can replace the DSLR.

    My Sony NEX-C3 has a 12-bit sensor.
    Irrelevant for static subjects because I
    just use the HDR function (even though
    it's JPEG-only it's a wonderful feature).
    But for things that move in erratic
    lighting I need serious bit depth.

    I have yet to do serious and interesting
    things with the NEX... :)

Share This Page