Any compelling reason to go mirrorless?

[tom_elessar]

<p>Andy L:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D800 is worlds better than the others in almost all ways except for size.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would also add "cost." If I had the money, I might get a D600 + lenses. But I went for an OMD instead for the usual reason (size), as well as the fact that I could get one, plus lenses, for less than half of what a D600 and lenses would cost. IBIS and face-detection are also valuable to me. I notice that cost rarely appears in photo.net discussions, which is unfortunate, since for many of us it plays a major role in decisions. <br>

<br /> If the original poster has EF lenses that he wants to keep using, however, he should probably get a Canon DSLR for the obvious reasons.</p>

<p>Are there any mods in this forum? It would seem that <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=253916">Patrick S</a> is trolling, and everyone in here is falling for it. </p>

[keith selmes]

<blockquote>

<p>It would seem that <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=253916" rel="nofollow">Patrick S</a> is trolling,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see no reason to say that. His contributions seem quite reasonable and sensible.<br>

Expressing opinions that some people don't like isn't trolling.</p>

[Member69643]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=702299">Keith Selmes</a> , Apr 17, 2013; 09:43 a.m.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>It would seem that <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=253916" rel="nofollow">Patrick S</a> is trolling,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see no reason to say that. His contributions seem quite reasonable and sensible.<br />Expressing opinions that some people don't like isn't trolling.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Keith. I don't think you can be a troll unless you don't actually own any of the things you express some disdain for. I do not like the EVF on any camera, whether mirrorless or P&S or SLT. And I own all of them. Again, they all make nice images. And they all have blind fanboys who think their chosen camera is god's gift to photography and may the gods damn anyone who thinks otherwise.</p>

<p>In general though, as several others have pointed out in numerous threads, there seems to be a lack of civility with some posters on photo.net which is due to internet anonymity. There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and calling someone ignorant or worse.</p>

<p>It will be nice when photo.net implements the ignore function. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Is this the new film vs. digital? Guys, lay off the strong language. "I think this kind of camera is better than this other kind" is not a personal attack.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Let's be honest here. Cameras are a very personal choice. Some will love smaller form factors, others will love larger ones. Some will love 1,000,001 adjustments, others will want 3. It's all personal. At this point, the only way to know is go to a camera shop and try them out. Everything else is just flapping your jaw...</p>

[keith selmes]

<blockquote>

<p>Is this the new film vs. digital?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

feels like it. best to keep out of it.<br>

except, I've seen Trolling, and I don't see it here.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>"<em>In general though, as several others have pointed out in numerous threads, there seems to be a lack of civility with some posters on photo.net which is due to internet anonymity. There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and calling someone ignorant or worse.</em><br>

<em>It will be nice when photo.net implements the ignore function.</em>"</p>

<p><em>"<strong>Talk about useless words. If you have a counterpoint, pipe up, otherwise, shut up and go play with your toys.</strong>"</em></p>

<p>You first, Patrick S. Any chance you forgot firing this opening shot at the top of this thread? Probably.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>^^</p>

<p>That's what I am talking about! Big camera war. Neither of you guys would carry some little weenie camera and talk like that. That kind of talk cries out for a bush hat and a beefy monopod .... Big a** D3s with the wifi bolted on just to bulk it up. Nothing short of a 70-200 F2.8 can back up talk like that. </p>

<p>You will not win this kind of argument with a dinky mirror-less metrosexual camera. Yea I got that it does almost everything better and will fit in your pocket but who cares. I am a man dammit and I want to carry a man's camera. And it better be a Nikon or Cannon. (Those white lenses are a little light in the slippers for me but I can overlook that.) I want it big. Size matters. <br>

Dinky is not a "form factor". It is just plain bantam, diminutive, meager, paltry, pint-sized, puny, petite, wee and trivial. Not for me. Give me bodacious, big, enormous, substantial, and manly. Dude whenever I see a female photographer with a D4 I realize that this is a pro with her big-girl pants on. A woman of the world. A consequential person. <br>

So let's hear no more of this mirror-less retreat from life in the food chain. If someone makes fun of my camera I don't want to put on a hurt look and try to defend my position with arguments about how nicely my IBIS (whatever the hell that is) works. No way. I want to smack the little dweeb with my man-lens. Why do you think I bought that 400 F2.8 anyway? Its better than a beard and facial tattoos. </p>

<p> </p>

[Member69643]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7320367">C Watson</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 17, 2013; 02:38 p.m.</p>

 

<p>"<em>In general though, as several others have pointed out in numerous threads, there seems to be a lack of civility with some posters on photo.net which is due to internet anonymity. There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and calling someone ignorant or worse.</em><br /><em>It will be nice when photo.net implements the ignore function.</em>"<br>

<em>"<strong>Talk about useless words. If you have a counterpoint, pipe up, otherwise, shut up and go play with your toys.</strong>"</em><br>

You first, Patrick S. Any chance you forgot firing this opening shot at the top of this thread? Probably.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Oh no, I didn't forget. Your selective editing is funny though. :) My comment was a demand for more info than "ignorant crap" from Leslie Chung, which if you'd included, would fully make sense. Those are useless words. A real counterpoint would be welcomed. I think it was pretty restrained, given the rudeness of Leslie's comment. I may have been out of line and if so, apologize. </p>

[Andy Collins]

<p><strong>Rick M.--<em>LOL!</em></strong></p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Yeah Rick, I second that LOL. Good stuff there. :)</p>

<p>How about this. Everyone post up three of <em>your </em>favorite photos with the gear you have been discussing here. Pro, amateur, processed, SOOC....doesnt matter. Lets see what everybody is shooting within this whole Mirrorless/DSLR discussion. Because as they say, a picture is worth...</p>

<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8285/7525426552_8ef40a2218_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8037/8049076694_0ef69575b5_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8051/8106838460_5e570bb68c_c.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /></p>

<p>All shot on my dainty and girly NEX 7 of course. Silly little camera, it could never be a professional tool...</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>No time to be armed with a pea shooter.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

Just to stir things up some more I will post my OPINION. I own and shoot DSLRs and have shot SLR for over 30 years.

That said I do have Panasonic m43 bodies and a Nikon 1 system (given to me for a speaking engagement) and have

used the NEX7. In addition to all that I also shoot leica M for pleasure and have an M6, M8 and my new M should arrive

shortly. Thus I have extensive experience with all systems. Here is what I have found

 

1 for action sports - especially in low light (ice hockey or similar) you cannot get close to a top SLR and F2.8 lens

combination with any mirror less system I have used. While they claim faster AF in these conditions they do not cut it.

Similarly they struggle due to slower lenses and (generally) smaller sensors in these low light conditions. Obviously this

is a specialized situation but one that is important for many shooters.

 

2 for unpredictable motion the AF systems in top DSLRs have them beaten - for example a fast object coming into view

(e.g. Skier over a jump) or dogs playing the combination of the big OVF and excellent AF system on a full frame or APSH

canon makes these challenging subjects much easier. Of course you still need lots of experience and I suspect that

cheaper consumer DSLRs and lenses will also struggle - you get what you pay for!

 

3 the image files tend to have a more "plasticky" feel (not a technical term) and do not survive post processing as well as

files from bigger sensors. I find this is also true of files from my 7D when compared to a full frame Canon. The files from

mirrorless bodies seem slightly worse that the 7D in this respect and I have been told that even in RAW these is some in

camera processing to compensate for the lens and other issues that may be the cause of it. This is not a big deal and

99% of viewers will not notice - unless it is with smaller sensors like the Nikon 1

 

4 the smaller size means that the control layout is not as good as on a big DSLR. You find that you have to look at the

back of the camera and go into the menu system more often. Of course the digital Leicas have the simplest control

system of and digital camera that I have used and they are technically "mirrorless"

 

5 the build quality is not as good - this is not a function of being mirrorless - merely a function of being cheaper. I would

dispute with (I think it was JDM) on the reliability advantage of electronic components over mechanical. While the lack of

movement should make this the case I have found the opposite. All of my three Canon F1 s are still going strong and

they endured years of abuse - one even fell down a mountain. Of course construction of this quality today would be

incredibly expensive.

 

6 working with fisheye lenses and tilt shift lenses will probably be more difficult (I have tried tilt shift and fisheye on my

Panasonic using a canon FD lens). Obviously the smaller sensor does not allow real fisheye effects with a full frame lens.

With tilt shift the smaller body and rear screen mean that it is much harder to compose with a tilt shift lens than on a full

frame body. Of course a wireless link to a tablet or pc would solve most of this.

 

7 flash systems - the ones I have used do not have the flash capabilities of a good DSLR system. This is not a technical

issue - merely one that mirrorless customers appear not to want to pay for

 

That said in many situations their small size and (relatively) low price are an advantage - as is their short flange distance

and resulting ability to use legacy glass - unfortunately with a crop factor.

[philip_wilson]

I should add that despite being a tiny, very electronic system I actually quite like my (free) Nikon 1 system and bought an

18.5 mm prime for it. Despite all the drawbacks I listed above you can put it in a pocket and it can take pretty good

images so long as you are aware of its limitations.

[philip_wilson]

One final point on mirrorless (excluding Leica and using old MF lenses on adapters) is that the range of lenses is weak for

many uses. They tend to have a mix of slower zooms and middling performance primes in their line ups. Of course this

is again still a function of their target market who in general are unlikely to pay several thousand dollars for a single lens.

From what I have seen the Fuji X systems seems to be building a decent range of lenses. M43 has a good selection of

lenses although most fall into the slower / cheaper category.

[jeff_hostetler]

<p>Gettin older and less weight to carry around.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>I think yet to be mentioned:</p>

<ol>

<li>Most every lens has "focus shift" issues. This is undetected and difficult to correct in DSLR units. On the other hand, a mirrorless camera with an EVF such as the NEX7 etc., (Especially using legacy glass) can effectively focus at the "taking aperture". Thus<strong> correcting for any focus shift</strong> at the selected aperture.</li>

<li>With the EVF & focus peaking combos, one can easily focus on a subject at the <strong>edge of the frame</strong> and likewise also perform "predictive" focusing anywhere in the frame. (i.e. On grass you can see the "ban" of peaking which allows for triggering the shutter release when the subject reaches the "sharpness ban")</li>

<li>With the "Speed Booster" on APS-C sensors, one can create ultrafast, full frame lenses with<strong> better image quality !</strong> (An f/1.4 becomes a f/1.2 etc.)</li>

</ol>

<p>All this and more (many listed earlier in the post) in a package smaller than a Leica M3 rangefinder camera.</p>

[j_sevigny]

<p>You get a CMOS sensor in something half the size of an SLR. With adapters you can use pretty much any lens in the world on some cameras. The EVF on the NEX6 blows the tunnel viewfinders of budget dslrs out of the water. I shot with film and then slrs for years. I'm now working with only mirrorless cameras and I can't imagine myself every buying a dSLR again. </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I don't like DSLRs ... period. </p>

<p>Now with MFT it makes my DSLR redundant, purchased mainly so I could use a bellows from SLR days which was no use with a bridge camera [ early super-zoom ].</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Reasons to go mirrorless:</p>

<p>- It is one thing less to make, hence the cost is redced, the size is reduced.</p>

<p>- it is more electronic and less mechanical and optical, hence there are more automatic features, for example, face/smile recognition</p>

<p>- less intimidating to most people, so there are more people interested in</p>

<p>- most people got used to shooting with LCD and unable to see through a hole with a viewfinder, therefore using a mirrorless is much more the same as what they have been shooting with</p>

<p> mirrorless has been advertised as something new, something that will replace the DSLR</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>MILCs are game changers. The Fuji X series cameras and optics have convincingly shown what's ahead. The X-Pro 1 and X-E1 put DSLR image quality into a smaller, fast-handling package. Anyone who thinks these are toys has never shot them and probably never will.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>Just to stir things up some more I will post my OPINION.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there is a difference between talking about the current mirrorless systems and the mirrorless systems in the future. Many of the "deficiencies" that you talked about are simply the result of the mirrorless system being in existence for about 5-6 years, as compared to the dSLRs, which together with their SLRs grand parents, have decades in development. Plus, most mirrorless systems start out to attract P&S shooters so they seemed to go out of their way to make the system light and small at the expense of performance. This is beginning to change in both the design of the camera bodies and the emerging of fast, weather sealed prime and zoom lenses. They will get to the flash eventually, but I must say that Nikon is no doubt a leader in the flash technology so other players may be just behind in this area in terms of expertise. My point is that none of the described "weakness" has anything to do with whether or not a camera needs a mirror, which is no doubt on the way out.</p>

<p>At this stage the real disadvantage of the mirror-less system is AF-tracking, because its AF is contrast based that is not predictive, and that there is a delay in displaying the live images as they are acquired when shot in burst. This issue will also get worked out over time as sensor and processing power improve.</p>

<p>For the working pro who need a system that is versatile and just works when you ask for it, the established dSLRs are still the best tools out there. However for the vast majority of people who need to take pictures of family life, what do they gain with a D800, 7100, or D4, as opposed to the much smaller and lighter mirror-less system that produce outstanding images? The vast majority of people already love to just use their smartphones, which will someday kill the market completely for entry level P&S <em>cameras. </em> </p>

[dan_shelton]

<p>I haven't read all these entries yet, but from the first two pages i get the "gist?" Is that how it's spelled? Anyway, the compelling reason is MONEY. One may want to learn a bit more... step up from point and shoot... get higher quality images but have some creative control... it's a perfect, affordable, intererim step for a non-professional, like myself. I can't say I love the lenses that were within my budget. I have it adapted to a very fine refractor telescope, and I'm getting feather fine bird photos, which was my aim. I don't like not having a diaphragm. My little system is all bubble gum and baling wire, frankly.</p>

<p>I want to get a quality, full framed DSLR, either reconditioned or second hand for a bargain basement price. The ability to adapt any non-native lens to a micro 4/3 is enticing, but except for my refractor with the crazy Russian glass, I haven't found a lens that makes restriction to manual focus worth tolerating. It's difficult with wildlife, and especially birds, to not have a decent auto-focus feature. So, I joined. I'm thinking about selling my stuff, tossing in some boot, and starting over. I've got a lot to learn.</p>

<p>You may yell at me now. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>I have one mirrorless camera, an Olympus E-PL1s. It is not a professional camera. It is more of a Tinker Toy. It is a lot of fun to use. Here are the things that are fun.</p>

<p>1. I can use all weird lenses that I've collected over the years. This includes Pentax 110 lenses. </p>

<p>2. I can get "6x6" format at the press of a button. Now I don't have to get a Robot camera.</p>

<p>3. Electronic viewfinder shows exactly how the picture will look.</p>

<p>Okay, it's a Tinker Toy. But the full-frame mirrorless professional cameras are coming. It is a matter of time. The Leica M is a forerunner.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Brian, as mentioned, if you are not willing to invest in lenses, then stick with Canon DSLRs. Something like the T4i is right up your alley. What current lenses do you have, out of curiosity? It could simply be that you don't have quite the investment in lenses that you think that you do. If all you have are low-end pieces of glass from the film days, where film is much more forgiving than digital on optical deficiencies, then it might be worth re-investing in a new system. You are correct that with mirrorless cameras, the cost savings aren't there, and that is one thing that is frustrating. Going from large format to medium format to 35mm full frame to APS DSLRs, you see a very real cost savings. However, by stepping down to micro 4/3, you don't get that linear drop in price/performance, and the Sony NEX cameras are just as expensive as the better-specced DSLRs (to be clear, the NEX and DSLRs have the same image quality, but the DSLRs often have many more features). I would skip the EOS M that many here are recommending; you aren't going to have any advantages over just getting one of Canon's smaller DSLRs.</p>

<p>Patrick, I along with many other users have mirrorless cameras as backups to our DSLR systems, and they do have advantages besides size, although you shrug even that off as if it's minor. Size is huge; it's the primary reason that so many of us have backup mirrorless systems. You can get the same quality as larger cameras in a much smaller footprint, which is nothing to scoff at. Additionally, there are other benefits as well. First of all, there is no mirror, which is nice because there is therefore no mirror slap, and you don't have to lock up the mirror. In its native shooting mode, you get a live view of the scene right up until you take the shot. The lack of a mirror also allows for a shorter register (mount-to-sensor distance), which means that your wide angle lenses don't have to be designed with a retrofocal design in mind. This has been the beauty of Leica; compare their wide angle lenses to Nikon's or Canon's monstrosities.</p>

<p>Plus, these mirrorless cameras use contrast detect autofocus, so they offer much more accurate focus than DSLRs do. There is no need to test your lenses, apply in-camera focus calibrations, send your whole kit back to the manufacturer to be properly aligned to one another every time you pick up a new piece of equipment, etc. Also, these smaller cameras often fly under the radar, so you can get one by in concerts and other venues where it says something along the lines of "professional cameras not allowed." It also allows you to get shots you otherwise wouldn't, because a D800 with a 35mm f/1.4 lens is very noticeable in a crowd; you get furtive looks. Plus, the whole frame has autofocus capability; compare that to the SLRs that have the focus points bunched in the center (this is one of the reasons that my next camera will be a D7100 and not a D800).<br>

Now, this doesn't mean that mirrorless are better. There are many shortcomings to them, and every day I use my Panasonic it has a few frustrating features. But to categorically call the class of camera as something with no advantages over DSLRs is ridiculous, and I've found that in the case of these fanboys that are vehemently for or against something, their opinions tell you a lot more about their personas than they tell you about the product that they are bashing or praising. The mirrorless design is very smart; unlike the SLR, which was designed to hide away the recording media (film). In the digital age, not only is it unnecessary to hide it away for most of the time, but it's advantageous to have it exposed before the shot!</p>

<p>JDM, the advantage of going retrofocal is smaller size, better corner-to-corner performance, and price. Look at these examples of retrofocus lenses:<br>

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/09/lens-genealogy-part-2<br>

And as someone that shoots with APS Nikon DSLRs, it has also led to a very perceptible lack of lenses. I'd kill for a decent 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm equivalent prime lens. The only one that exists and is worthwhile optically is the Nikon 24mm, which is not worth the size or shelling out $2,000 for APS shooters. So many great lenses exist because so many photographers want wide angle, but their price and size are way out of line. Look at lenses like the 50mm f/1.4 and and the 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.4; I want something in that range of size and price, considering the performance that I get. I don't want something that is $1,500+ and the size of my car's trunk just to go wider than normal.</p>

<p>Sorry that my post is piecewise, but I'm adding replies as I read down. Patrick, Nikon and Canon didn't invent mirrorless for the same reason that Shell and Exxon don't push solar panels; you don't rock the boat. By their actions, it is pretty clear that they are trying to push the systems into which they've invested who knows how much money.</p>