Why go DSLR?

[sarah_fox]

<p>Leslie, prefocusing the camera eliminates the focus lag. Premetering or shooting in manual eliminates the metering lag. Shutter lag on any good camera is pretty short. There's probably very little difference between a dSLR and a mirrorless camera in this respect. However, there is still (and forever will be) an EVF lag. Whatever you see in an EVF is already history. You can try to capture it, but that's a sucker's game. The best you can do is to try to anticipate the moment by tripping the shutter a fraction of a second ahead of the mark. But I'm not good at that.</p>

<p>Could an EVF be faster? Sure. However, "fast" and "high resolution" don't easily come together. If I had an EVF as fast and as sharp/high-res as my computer monitor, I'd still want an optical viewfinder, because it's even higher res and faster.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>However, there is still (and forever will be) an EVF lag.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, EVF lag is neglectable in most situations unless you are dealing with fast action sport. I have used more p&s than you, no? I do mostly street photography. And Canon p&s are the worst of the bunch in AF/shutter lag. Really, Sarah, what modern p&s have you used extensively?</p>

<p>And OVF is your preference (opinion), I'm not going to argue that...</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>You're absolutely right, Leslie. None of us are up to date on the latest in mirror-less systems. The real question for this group is: "Why might we care?"<br>

<br />Do the mirrorless systems:</p>

<ul>

<li>support TS-E? I have $2500 invested in tilt-shift lenses.</li>

<li>have remote flash setup menus on camera? I have $1500 invested in Canon ETTL flashes.</li>

<li>make good use of my L- series lenses? I'll spare us both a full accounting...</li>

<li>have good basic exposure control on my thumb and finger wheels?</li>

<li>have easy control and selection for ISO, focus, exposure compensation, shot count/rate,... without taking the camera from the eye?</li>

<li>really, really compare favorably on exposure lag?</li>

<li>have a bright enough view screen to use in daylight?</li>

</ul>

<p>How compelling is a mirror-less system, next to my usefully full DSLR gear bag?</p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>G12 numbers: single area focus: 0.656 || prefocus: 0.076<br>

RX100: 0.0153 and 0.013</p>

<p>The sony is 4X as fast and ~6x as fast respectively. Ever wonder why Canon p&shooters moan about their slow p&s?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>"Why might we care?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, you don't care therefore you don't know...just like most Americans (and also Mainland Chinese) and worldly events...ignorance is bliss, right?</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>LOL, I must admit I created this thread as a bit of a joke. I am so sick of seeing threads along the lines of "why use mirrorless?" in the mirrorless cameras category. You don't often see "Why use a rangefinder?" or "Why use a TLR" in their respective categories. I simply thought I would turn the tables and ask the reverse question about DSLRs.</p>

<p>I am a big DSLR fan, mirrorless is just a plaything for me at the moment. However, a few of your comments made me chuckle:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>They're not even in the same class. The question makes about as much sense as "why don't you just use your smartphone?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Due to my kind nature, I am not even going to respond to that ;-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>EVF does have some merits (say, bright image in low-light situation) but one can't really tell what the image will <strong>really</strong> look like.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You can tell what your image will <strong>really</strong> look like using your DSLR mirrorbox? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do the mirrorless systems:</p>

<ul>

<li>make good use of my L- series lenses? I'll spare us both a full accounting...</li>

<li>have good basic exposure control on my thumb and finger wheels?</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, the mirrorless systems make no more use of your Canon L lenses than your Canon DSLR body makes of the mirrorless system lenses. Actually, that's not strictly true. You can use your Canon L lenses on the Canon EOS M cameras and you can mount them and use them on other mirrorless system cameras too (manual focus only).<br>

My Oly E-P3 and E-PL5 have decent exposure compensation controls on their respective thumbwheels but not as nice and easy as on my EOS DSLR cameras though.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Sarah, I realize I do sound a bit harsh often when it comes to the topic of mirrorless cameras...my apologies. But really, try a premium Sony or Panasonic p&s. Some second rate sony p&s is quicker than the often recommended Canon S100...No joke! </p>

[michael_young3]

<p>Leslie, I actually thought you might have something to add, some insight help us understand why we might care. I perfectly well understand if you don't have an answer. A casual observer would think, probably correctly judging from your later responses, that mirror-less was never intended to do the job of a DSLR. Let's be very clear, though, about which of us is doing the trolling and time-wasting.</p>

 

[bjcarlton]

<p>The only thing that could make this thread better would be for someone (me, for example) to somehow work in film vs. digital.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Michael Young, read Jamie R's post if you haven't. Your post is just too silly...And, just for the record, I don't care if you don't care...</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>Exactly, you don't care therefore you don't know...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Except, you seem to know it all, and haven't yet pointed out why the people who aren't interested should be. You're full of scorn, but never any new information. Why? Because there isn't any new information. Saying, "go try it" to people who are pointing out why they use DSLRs (and who are giving you very specific reasons for doing so) isn't actually being in any way enlightening. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Barry:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only thing that could make this thread better would be for someone (me, for example) to somehow work in film vs. digital.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mirrorless cameras (except Leicas) aren't system-compatible with any film cameras. By shooting Nikon DSLRs, I can pull out my F100 when the mood strikes and shoot clearly superior film that (etc. etc.) better than a digital sensor and Rodinal!</p>

<p>(Okay, to me full compatibility between my F100 and D800 kits is an actual advantage, but not such a huge one that I'd call it a compelling reason.)</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, Leslie, I find your comments interesting and pertinent and I've learned more about mirrorless here...</p>

<p>When you wrote,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...why do I even bother:)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I wondered what you meant. But now I kinda see your point.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Except, you seem to know it all, and haven't yet pointed out why the people who aren't interested should be. You're full of scorn,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, Matt, I'm scornful blah blah. What, mad about my insult earlier? You think I care what you shoot with? Or, why you (or anyone else) oughta get a mirrorless? I don't. I actually think you should take a trip to India, really. That will do you more good:)))</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I wondered what you meant. But now I kinda see your point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are right, Alan. I should of stayed away...Have a good one! </p>

[bjcarlton]

<p>Andy L: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mirrorless cameras (except Leicas) aren't system-compatible with any film cameras. By shooting Nikon DSLRs, I can pull out my F100 when the mood strikes and shoot clearly superior film that (etc. etc.) better than a digital sensor and Rodinal!<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good one! Actually, come to think of it, view cameras are mirrorless, too.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>For many non photographers - SLR is seen as the benchmark and they use a kit lens :) I know people who gift a father's day gift.</p>

<p>For me, b/c mirrorless can be expensive compared to a dSLR. dSLR you can also get older lenses. Optical viewfinder and also a larger selection of lenses to choose. I also still shoot film too. To keep the size down for SLRs - a lil prime lens and a consumer body. But having said that - if I tried a mirrorless system and I could take the lens expenditure maybe I would be happy with a mirrorless system. I do like to shoot larger format film like 120 so instead of the Nikon dSLR I could use a mirrorless and the dSLR and 120 don't share lenses anyway ..... when simplified down they are so much more portable. I saw an American couple in Tokyo recently on travel and we chatted about photography lol and that's what he carried and he left his dSLR back home, we also chatted about medium format :)) He just had a single prime lens on his Olie M4/3 and a fisheye in his pocket.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>Good one! Actually, come to think of it, view <a id="itxthook1" href="/casual-conversations-forum/00bj8Y?start=40" rel="nofollow">cameras<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> are mirrorless, too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do agree with you that a view camera, rangefinder camera like the Leica M series, Mamiya 7 medium format, the Canonet cameras are all mirrorless. However, I don't think when people think of mirrorless that's what they are thinking of. I believe when they say mirrorless they meant the camera provide an EVF or LCD screen that showing the image thru the lens and yet no mirror is use. I think when they call it mirrorless they meant "thru the lens viewing without the use of a mirror"</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>No, I'm not mad Leslie - I'm looking for actual new information. Something that explains your weariness and disdain with us people who don't <em>get</em> it. Please! Get into the details. It seems like the best way to prove that it isn't just you being cranky is to explain what it is that all of us old fashioned optical people are so wrong about. You know, actual details. Not just a nag to "go try it." <br /><br />You've got several people pointing out detailed points of interest, above, about which you seem to agree/understand ... and then you make a point of saying we don't care. Which is it?</p>

[bjcarlton]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I don't think when people think of mirrorless that's what they are thinking of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite so. My only personal experience with mirrorless cameras was when my 5D classic converted itself into one during a photo shoot a couple years back. I found it very unsatisfactory, and have stuck to DSLRs ever since.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>I started the most recent, " Why Mirrorless ? " thread so you can all blame me. :(</p>

<p>I think the two reasons I shoot a DSLR/SLR are the two things that make mirrorless so different. <br>

1) Size. Mirrorless is all about being smaller and lighter. I have zero issues with the size and weight of my current cameras. In fact, I found my D7000 too small, when I first got it, Going to something with the same lenses and at least 30% smaller than my "small" DSLR has no appeal to me. Buttons and controls get smaller too, because there is less space to put them. If I want something small, I want it small enough to not need a bag and a collection of lenses, to be honest. </p>

<p>2) Viewfinder. I want a good one. Only the top end Mirrorless cameras have an EVF. On the plus side for EVFs it's like a constant live view. What you see is what you get as you change the camera settings. I'm just not sure I want to look through a video camera screen all the time. </p>

<p>I'll add another item...</p>

<p>3) Value. A good mirrorless camera will set you back $1000. At that price, I don't think it can beat a DSLR kit for performance on many levels. I haven't done enough research on dynamic range, low noise levels at various ISO settings, etc. Add to that, if I want to use the smaller lenses that go with most of these cameras, the cost isn't insignificant. Some seem rather expensive for what you get. </p>

<p>I guess, in a nutshell, at this time.... the mirrorless camera strives to fix problems that I don't have. That being said, I am still trying to find a place for it in the camera spectrum. Who would it be a good choice for ? Where does it do a great job and where does it stumble ? What does it fix that a camera with a mirror doesn't do a good job of ? </p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

<p>John, it sounds like you're an obvious candidate to be a DSLR buyer. But I still disagree with you about prices: a mirrorless can be less expensive than its DSLR competition. (Where "mirrorless" includes only interchangeable lens system cameras.) For example: Adorama has new Olympus and Nikon 1 kits (with zoom lenses) starting at $299 and the lowest price for a new DSLR kit is $429. That's on the low end. Or if you want something higher spec, a Fuji X-E1 kit is $1199. You can't get anything new at that level in a DSLR for that money.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>So far my main mirrorless camera (not counting my often-used iPhone 5's camera) is, of all things, a GoPro 3. So, despite having tried several of the more traditionally "usable" new mirrorless (interchangeable lens) bodies, I simply haven't found one yet that solves the problems that would have me buy one. So that means I'm sticking with oddball stuff for now.<br /><br />I have been impressed, watching guys like Lex Jenkins squeeze some really likable work out of Nikon's V1. But it hasn't fit into my world, yet. I like the idea of a mirrorless body that can leverage the rest of my Nikon-ish goodies, but nothing rises to the level yet. Unless Leslie is keeping something back!</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I don't have neither a DSLR nor a Mirrorless digital interchangeble lens camera. If I were to get one it won't be the mirrorless because I can't manually focus with it. Trying to manually focus while looking at only a small portion of the frame is no way I can do it. I wouldn't like any camera (I would use if I have no choice) that I can't control everything manually. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Inertia, mostly. <br /> We have gotten used to the high state of the art DSLR mirror pentaprism models and have our head screwed on to that model which is still a great one, had years to become improved. They still do a superb job, having been around for as long as I can remember. In my long ago youth there was the Kine Exacta and one or two others....<br /> Canon you know took off back in the dark ages too, about 1971 with a full F-1 system and a full system of FD w some wonderful aspheric lenses and all the trimmings. And the aftermarket followed Canon and Nikon as well.<br /> About that time, my upscale rabid photo shooter friend <strong>Nikon Bob</strong> sniffs a little " Why in heavens name , you bought a <em>Canon</em> for? You are throwing your hat in with a newcomer in the professional grade cameras, there is nothing like an FTN and a Nikkor lens..." <br /> Deja vu and kind of funny in a way in spirit of Jamie's OP. So there is some-we need entertainment now more than ever- sporting value in such ongoing little tiffs and they have educative value of a sort, where we all have a money stake, and face need to buy anything new and unproven in the big sense unproven. <br /> Is a mirrorless model "professional "enough? Even,forgive the thought, <em>Good Enough?</em> ....<br /> My avid photographer friend whom I admired, a real hero to me, Bob, if still with us, might pose it this way" <br /> " Why, (John et al) you of the Skeptical Mindset, do you want to throw in your hat to a camera style without even a prism and a mirror a tried well perfected system you know and love and are used to as well. Get with it pal. See what the lens sees and the photons reveal not the electronic mini TV screen" or " You might as well be buying a Leica or a Fuji and be done with it, so be a rangefinder person, and they get plenty of respect. No one questions the rangefinder model design" .. <br /> Mirrorless ,shhh, rumor has it are mostly favored by you know the photo <em>hoi polloi</em> crowd:-)</p><div></div>