Why go mirrorless ?

[andylynn]

<p>Oh, right, "the A99 is a mirrorless blah blah blah and the card says Moops."</p>

[Sanford]

<p>If the iPhone is becoming the camera of choice for all media, who need full frame! Look at these various POTW forums, once the photo hits the Internet, you can't distinguish what took what. Maybe just fine art huge prints.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I would have to try that combo to believe it handles well !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite surprisingly considering how it looks - but it indeed handles well. I have the 105/2.5 Ai and use it on a NEX 6. I agree with what David wrote about the NEX 6 probably being the better choice than the NEX 7 and that giving up the Tri-Navi isn't that big of a deal. What is surprising is that the price of the NEX 6 has dropped $200 in the last two months - when I purchased it, the cost was $848 and it dropped $100 within the 30-day period after I purchased it, so adorama gave me a $100 store credit. Today I see that the price has dropped another $100 - sign that a replacement is coming already?</p>

<p>Seems to me that a lot of people go mirrorless to use manual focus "legacy" glass - for the rest it likely is an alternative to the bulkier DSLR camera body - even though most lenses will still be fairly large.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>David,</p>

<p>That does make the point, bare body vs. bare body, but once you put legacy lenses on them, the difference in your camera bag becomes less dramatic. Especially with one of those like you posted just above ! I know that's a bit of an extreme example, but it highlights the fact. It does make that D4 look quite large, however. </p>

<p>Gerry,<br>

"The good mirrorless models will have a quality electronic finder." Which ones are those ? I my searching it has seemed only the top end, rather pricey ones have that. The rest expect the usual smart phone shooting style. I will do some web searching to see what has the EVF. </p>

<p> </p>

[johnw63]

<p>Fuji X-E1; $1400</p>

<p>Olympus OMD-EM5; $1200<br>

Same price as a D7000, but smaller. </p>

<p>Panasonic DMC-GH3; $1300<br>

Panasonic DMC-G5; $500 <br>

Both of these may as well be a regular DSLR for their layout , I think. About the same over all size as the Olympus. </p>

<p>Sony Alpha NEX-7 , NEX-6 ; $1000, $650</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

<p>John, you just gave a list that has prices that correspond to the entire spectrum of enthusiast DSLRs - $500 - $1300 for the camera body.</p>

<p>Your Fuji X-E1 price is actually high - that used to be the price for the camera with the zoom lens, but now that kit is $1200 and the body is $800. The lens is as good as other companies' f/2.8 zooms, so that kit price is really one of the better deals you can get in high-enthusiast grade interchangeable lens cameras.</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>Rent an OM-D with a decent lens and use it for a week. If you're coming from low- to mid-end gear, you'll be shocked by its responsiveness and image quality. If you're coming from high-end gear, you'll be shocked at how much better it is than you thought it would be. In either case, you'll probably be surprised by how much fun it is.<br>

<br />The difference in IQ between the better mirrorless cameras and APS-C cameras is small and probably not noticeable in the vast majority of shooting situations. Yet mirrorless cameras are much smaller and consequently much more portable. </p>

[david_smith110]

<p>John, the Fuji X cameras have that retro style that I love. And they have cashed in on their photo heritage in a strong and convincing way. The deal breaker for me though was no focus peaking. I dont know if they have implemented it yet, but after using with my old glass I wont ever buy a camera without it now. Oh, and they dont have articulating screens. Seems silly but I shoot way to much macro and I dont miss laying down in the wet grass to get the shot.</p>

<p>I finished up a roll of film today and the last few shots I had this post in mind. Here is a direct comparison of my 7 with the speedbooster and the beloved Yashica ML 50/1.7 attached compared to an old Minolta SRT 101 with a 55/1.7 gracing the front. Film cameras like this (Minolta and others) were used by pros for many years and are responsible for some of the greatest photography of the 20th century. These two setups are really close as you can see. (BTW, that ML 50/1.7 on the speedbooster becomes a 53/1.2 instead of the 75/1.7 it would become on a regular adapter.)</p>

<p><em>chloe inspecting the gear</em><br /> <em><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5326/9002279585_a300bbbfb6_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="541" /></em><br /> <br /> <em>a different angle</em><br /> <em><img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3704/9003456548_770d08e3e7_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="541" /></em><br /> <br /> <em><br /></em>And in all honesty how is mounting a large lens to a MC any different then this monstrosity that a contact of mine over on flickr just posted.<br /> <a href="

<p>A photographer uses the gear necessary to get the shot he desires. Doesnt matter what it looks like. It does indeed matter how it handles though for sure. My ex brother in law is the Moto GP photographer for Honda Motorcycles and I have watched him at Laguna Seca shooting the race. He has HUGE Telephoto lenses attached to his camera that make my earlier NEX/Nikon photo look positively lilliputian.</p>

<p>Heres a question for you John which really should have been asked by now. What kind of photography do you shoot and what is your current gear? Also, what is making you consider MC's?</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>The good mirrorless models will have a quality electronic finder." Which ones are those ? I my searching it has seemed only the top end, rather pricey ones have that. The rest expect the usual smart phone shooting style. I will do some web searching to see what has the EVF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are looking at the higher end of the spectrum and no need to shoot that high. I am lately using a GH 2. That model, now discontinued, can probably be had for $600; a G 3-G5 for about the same I am guessing. I still have and use a G-1 which fits the bill fine enough for lots of stuff so aim low to fit your wallet, you are experimenting remember?. If even that range is too much, there is always the used market, where some buys can still be had.<br /> I saw the Lumix G 5 with two lenses at COSTCO warehouse brand new with warranty for around six bills and a half...not bad for two not so bad lenses kit and EVF camera I was thinking If you have an upper limit to try what you are skeptical about,what can one say but cut out the lattes and save and save and save on junk food, like most of us 99% milieu bourgois shutterbugs....gs PS. Panasonic has produced some really nice zoom lenses that are in themselves making this micro 4/3 mount and sensor brand look better and better for more and more of us.... <br /> Disclosure. I happen to have an affinity for autofocus and full dedication in my day to day shooting. And why not if it appeals you know. As do most of us here i suspect. But it is nice to have a body to mount my 8 FD Canon lenses to play around with to fill in gaps...and Resurrection is wonderful in a way, eh what. <br /> (I also have a couple of nice Olympus ED four thirds lenses, which will work more or less and fit more or less with micro four thirds, so I have the bases covered for lenses right now . I am still unable to shoot. money wise, for the appealing Lumix 35-100 mm F 2.8. I have my eye on that too. I have the 12-35 mm and it is a wonderful thing. Real bucks unfortunately. One day though, maybe the 35-100. Good taste I have always enjoyed:-))<br /> Love quality large aperture zooms, they make photo life simpler and even more compact in the field...</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I would have to try that combo to believe it handles well !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite surprisingly considering how it looks - but it indeed handles well. I have the 105/2.5 Ai and use it on a NEX 6. I agree with what David wrote about the NEX 6 probably being the better choice than the NEX 7 and that giving up the Tri-Navi isn't that big of a deal. What is surprising is that the price of the NEX 6 has dropped $200 in the last two months - when I purchased it, the cost was $848 and it dropped $100 within the 30-day period after I purchased it, so adorama gave me a $100 store credit. Today I see that the price has dropped another $100 - sign that a replacement is coming already?</p>

<p>Seems to me that a lot of people go mirrorless to use manual focus "legacy" glass - for the rest it likely is an alternative to the bulkier DSLR camera body - even though most lenses will still be fairly large.</p>

[Brad_]

<center>

<P>

.

<P>

 

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Birds%20on%20a%20wire.jpg"><br>

 

<i> South of Market Area, San Francisco • ©2013 Brad Evans</i> <P>

.

</center>

 

<P>

 

>>> I've been keeping an eye on the whole mirrorless trend, of late, trying to see what the fuss was about, and I haven't figured it out , yet. ...

So, what is the draw of a mirrorless camera ?<P>

 

My Sony RX100 fits in my jeans pocket, produces excellent image quality, and lets me shoot in a wide range of circumstances from out on the street in bright light

to inside bars at ISO1600+. Coming from a 5DII, it's very liberating in that without a dSLR and bag, I'm not out looking for pix, but rather soaking in the

environment, meeting people, and having a lightweight compact camera in my pocket to shoot with if need be. <a href=

"http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/RX100%20sample%20gallery/">More pix...</a>

 

<P> I wouldn't over-think it.

[Alex_Es]

<p>Mirrorless combines the best of the DSLR and the rangefinder and then some. Just wait. When full frame mirrorless cameras hit the market there will be a revolution in photograph. They will only get increasingly better. Within ten years they will be ruling professional photography.</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>You could summarize things by cherry picking from Brad's response..."excellent IQ", "wide range of circumstances", "on the street", "inside bars", "liberating", "soaking in the environment", "lightweight" and here's the thing ; "don't OVERTHINK it"... since acquiring the Fuji X-E1 and X100 I've used my DSLRs maybe once in six months. The results I get straight out of the box are superior to the fat boys and lens support is growing. I just feel more emotionally involved using these cameras, I know that may sound ridiculous but I'm not the first X-series user to say that. Leica guys have said it for decades. One thing though...no-one pays you any attention when you're shooting! Now if Fuji would kindly make an X-series equivalent to that Leica Monochrom.....love from Downunder ;-)</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>Discussions about cameras outside of any context of the subjects and lighting conditions is a discussion of <em>electronic entertainment devices</em>. When they are discussed as photographic tools to capture specific types of images, then sometimes they are good tools and other times, not so much. I have 4 µ4/3 cameras. One of them is an E-M5 that I've been using for over a year. For virtually all my personal work it's wonderful and I much prefer it to my D7000.</p>

<p>One thing the Olympus and Panasonic µ4/3 cameras are dreadful at is on camera TTL flash. The cameras meter/calculate flash exposure much slower than a DSLR which results in a significant delay. Combined with slow AF in low light, even with the flashlight AF assist light, results in unacceptable delay for shooting people. (A D7000 with patterned AF assist light and a lens that focuses fast like the 17-55/2.8 is nearly instantaneous is similar conditions.) So, µ4/3 isn't what I want to use for shooting wedding receptions in typically dark, metro NY locations.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Here it is from a different viewpoint. Here I am using Leica M2s. I eventually go digital and start using a Canon 5D but

back problems make carrying it difficult, so I start looking for replacements. I eventually settle on a used M8 for 2K+. I use

that successfully for quite a while and the weight is good for me. But I want more than 10MP so I start looking at the M9. I

liked the 5D a lot but it was just too heavy. I eventually settled on a Sony Nex-7 as my Leica M8.5 (so to speak). Small

camera, good EVF, viewfinder magnification, focus peaking, adapts to anything. I use my Leica M lenses on it and the

whole package is small and light, much lighter than the 5D.

 

 

I still lust after the M9 but the NEX-7 works great, and even at $1000+, the NEX looks cheap to a Leica user.

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I am going to start a thread in the Canon EOS category entitled "Why go DSLR?". </p>

[andrew_vera]

<p>I have made two transitions in my life: film -> DSLR and now -> M4/3. Film to digital was easy: same lenses no film/chemicals, instant feedback. Only downside is that workflow becomes more complicated and the factor of images taken has increased by over 100x.<br>

Now that I am much older, I use my camera primarily for traveling; still taking quality images not just family snaps. The 20lbs of equipment I used to carry in a medium size backpack is now a small bag weighing around 5-6 lbs and covering the full range from 18 - 600mm and with two fast primes. <br>

It is the weight and compactness that converted me. Cost is about the same and quality is even with the APS-C cameras and a bit below the FF. However it is more than good enough for me and few could tell the difference with normal size images up to 16x20. The other benefits are I don't stand out to thieves, it is convenient to carry around, not really as noticeable as a large camera body with a large lens and you can use manual lenses from any make. It also allows you to get more intimate with your subject. <br>

In a nutshell, it is a better tool for my purpose.</p>

 

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Over the past couple of years, I have been using my dslr less and my point and shoot more (the usual reasons-size and weight).<br>

I like the description of a compact camera being a point and shoot on steroids.<br>

I went out today and bought the Sony NEX-6 with the 16-50 and the 55-210 mm lenses.<br>

Size and weight are no longer an issue and that will be wonderful for my travel photography.<br>

The battery is charging and I will be out tomorrow putting the camera through its paces.<br>

cb :-)</p>

[frank_page]

<p>The best camera is the camera you have with you. I love my Nex-6 because I can cram it in my briefcase, or stick it in a jacket pocket (in fall and winter) and it is there, ready to go. I had stopped taking many photos because carting the Canon DSLR around was becoming a real pain.<br /> <br /> I have given up the ability to use my zooms in favor of a 30mm and 50mm fixed focal length lenses. While I sometimes miss having a zoom, the discipline of using just these two lenses has been good for my photography. There are some other things I don't like about the Nex-6 (should have got a nex-7), but just having the camera with me makes up for not having a zoom and the other issues.<br /> <br /> The bottom line is the size and weight advantages are real. If they are not that important to you, then mirrorless has no inherent advantage. but given the quality of these cameras, they do not loose out to similarly priced DSLRs. <br /> And finally, all that really counts is the photo - not what took it. We should all find the best tools for us to take the photos we want to take. Spending time defending our choices is not very productive...</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>So, what is the draw of a mirrorless camera ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a nutshell: real time image processing. <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2012/12/mirrorless-technology.html">I wrote more on this here</a>.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Laur, your blog article is interesting and makes some valid points, but I don't think everyone will agree with your conclusions and forecast. Just as there are some differences of opinion in this thread about what mirrorless will do for them versus traditional mirror and pentaprism. I think they both will fill a need for some time,some long time indeed. <br>

Also, in passing may I add your evolution of the camera history is interesting but not entirely correct IMHO... You say,- if I read you right,- the rangefinder concept once popular became surpassed and essentially limited to one or two brands, like Leica most prominentely, a connoisseur thing. Not quite so I think. Konica Hexar is one that stayed with the rangefinder. And others I am sure, even now, there are rf styles. My point here being that the rangefinder concept is still alive and it lives on along side the mirror prism models, so the evolution is not so distinct. <br>

Point being I must conclude then that DSLR style will likely co exist with mirrorless in the marketplace, with what share I am not equipped to say but both will be around for a long time. Mirrorlees is indeed revolutionary but only in a way revolutionary. Surpassing all other styles?, no I think not as much as I like the WYSIWYG. I have personally both styles. True, the little mirrorless grabs more attention lately as I can tote it easily..:-) gs</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Laur, excellent blog. I have bookmarked it and if you dont mind I will be linking that in future forum posts both on this site and others. Very informative.</p>

<p>John if you are still reading this, I was looking up some information regarding a Tamron Adaptall zoom I am researching and came across this NEX 7 folder from a flickr user. It is full of photos of the 7 with many different lens and adapters attached. It gives a good visual idea of the power of the NEX system with regards to legacy glass. I know many people bemoan that lack of OEM AF lenses for the NEX system but the power of legacy glass really cant be discounted when considering it and the possible combinations and photo capabilities. Again, building a quality legacy lens set capable of stunning photos for a fraction of the price of AF glass is a huge draw for many.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldwideyeys/sets/72157628110695928/with/8121482529/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldwideyeys/sets/72157628110695928/with/8121482529/</a></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Got to say I for one do not see mirrorless as a "revolution in photography": that seems hyperbolic to me. I accept that most cameras will go mirrorless as EVFs improve, but I don't really see this means the end of big DSLR sized cameras - they will just be mirrorless. I am not sure this is as startling as many seem to think. What most people are extolling as mirrorless advantages are small size due to most current mirrorless being m4/3 or APS-C. Once you get to FF, or you want really good handling with fast lenses then things will get bigger to improve handling and to allow for fast optical designs. The Fuji X series are hardly that small. Also people always compare mirrorless with Pro FF DSLRs, when most of us FF users don't necessary have (using the D600s/6D, Rebels etc) these are not so monstrously large.</p>

[laur1]

<p>@Gerry:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think everyone will agree with your conclusions and forecast.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is perfectly fine. People did not believe film is going away either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just as there are some differences of opinion in this thread about what mirrorless will do for them versus traditional mirror and pentaprism. I think they both will fill a need for some time,some long time indeed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That might very well happen, but the point is that SLRs will lose the place they occupy today. I am not even sure if there will be enough SLR buyers for a firm to do what Leica did for the rangefinder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, in passing may I add your evolution of the camera history is interesting but not entirely correct IMHO... You say,- if I read you right,- the rangefinder concept once popular became surpassed and essentially limited to one or two brands, like Leica most prominentely, a connoisseur thing. Not quite so I think. Konica Hexar is one that stayed with the rangefinder. And others I am sure, even now, there are rf styles. My point here being that the rangefinder concept is still alive and it lives on along side the mirror prism models, so the evolution is not so distinct.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point is that the rangefinder concept is now irrelevant. It is not mainstream technology but just a niche market. The Hexar is now as dead as the company that made it. Zeiss and Voigtlander may still sell rangefinders, but they have not even tried to transition to digital. Even Leica added LiveView and movie recording features to their cameras and touted their benefits.<br>

SLRs will become irrelevant in the same way. Will they still be produced 20 years from now - perhaps, but who cares - their market will be minuscule and no one will be asking "what DSLR should I buy" anymore.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mirrorlees is indeed revolutionary but only in a way revolutionary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is the first occurrence of revolutionary supposed to be evolutionary?<br>

MILCs may not look like much today, but you have to look at the potential of the technology. People were laughing about the first cars and talked how they could never replace horses. And yes, we still have horses and we still ride them, but they're not the primary means of locomotion anymore. From a philosophical point of view, I could argue that nothing is revolutionary, everything is evolutionary. Revolution is just the name that people give to evolution when they cannot understand what exactly happened.</p>

<p>MILCs offer some impressive features already today: for example, integration with smart phones so you can control your camera via your phone. Could you do it with SLRs? Yes, but only by getting them out of SLR mode. Can you take movies with SLRs? Certainly, but only by getting them out of SLR mode. It's not hard to see that the more scenarios you can enable by getting an SLR to not be an SLR, the more you will see the SLR mechanism not as a feature but as an impediment.</p>

<p>@David</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Laur, excellent blog. I have bookmarked it and if you dont mind I will be linking that in future forum posts both on this site and others. Very informative.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for the kind words, David! Not only will I not mind; I will appreciate seeing links to my posts.<br>

<br>

@Robin</p>

<blockquote>

<p> don't really see this means the end of big DSLR sized cameras - they will just be mirrorless</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it is not the end of big cameras, it will just be the end of the SLR as the dominant camera technology. MILCs are already getting bigger as companies realize that not everyone wants a small camera body. I suspect that the small size was just a marketing strategy to attract people by offering something that is different in a way that is easy to gauge. It backfired in that some people seem to think that small size is all there is to this concept.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>Someone should post in the Canon and Nikon dSLR forums asking why are they still using traditional dSLRs?</p>