Does Mirrorless Overpriced ?

[hoi_kwong]

<p>Recently I'm thinking to add one mirrorless camera on top of my Nikon D300 & D700 for everyday picture and video because of the size, weight, WiFi, HD Video and shallow of DOF. I did some research but was shocked that the price of one mirrorless (say Panasonic GH3) with manual control feathers such as regular size hot shoes, mic in, audio out) is similar to Nikon D7100 with kit lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1005009-REG/nikon_13302_d7100_dslr_camera_with.html) <br>

I thought mirrorless is the bridge between DSLR and Point-and-shoot, DSLR is the King.... obviously I'm wrong. Not mentioning the $2300 Sony A7R body (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008112-REG/sony_ilce7r_b_a7r_mirrorless_digital_camera.html) <br>

Can anyone tell me why mirrorless camera are so expensive ? Does it worth that money or it's quality totally beats DSLR ? Will serious photographers or pro will pay more than their DSLR for mirrorless camera ? </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>It depends on what sort of camera you prefer. The Sony NEX-3n is only $400 with a lens:</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Sony-NEX-3NL-Compact-Interchangeable-Digital/dp/B00BF9MUBM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398405049&sr=8-1&keywords=sony+nex</p>

<p>I prefer mirrorless cameras to DSLRs. However, some people think the other way. Price does not matter very much. It depends what you want from a camera. Personally, I do not see any benefit to DSLRs, even if they are cheaper. I find them limiting and bulky. Mirrorless cameras are compatible with more lenses than DSLRs are.</p>

<p>In my opinion, if you are shooting sports - like Formula 1 or football - maybe the DSLR is a better choice. For all other subjects, I think that the mirrorless systems are superior, and I will pay more - if I have to.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There are some very reasonably priced APS sensor mirrorless camera/lens kits. The Fuji X-A1 and X-M1 were discounted earlier this year, but those prices have gone back up at some retailers. Some of the discontinued or soon to be discontinued models are occasionally discounted. It just depends on the features you want and whether the design and handling suits your preferences.</p>

<p>I wanted something smaller and lighter than a dSLR, with at least a tilt screen, with image quality comparable to any 12-16mp dSLR, especially above ISO 800. It had to have competent auto focus and auto exposure modes, manual exposure override and some form of manual focus confirmation. It should also have at least rudimentary compatibility with my existing Nikkors for manual focus, with or without metering - I'm accustomed to using incident, spot and guesstimate metering. But it didn't need to be particularly quick -- I'm still satisfied with the Nikon V1 for quick snaps.</p>

<p>Over the past couple of years I looked at several of the lower priced APS sensor mirrorless models and finally settled on the Fuji X-A1 with 16-50 zoom, which was still available for under $500 a couple of weeks ago. The image quality for still photography met my specific preferences so I was willing to compromise on other aspects. I'm impressed that Fuji didn't compromise on the image quality to meet a price point, and when the kit zoom is used within its sweet spot it's good enough to take advantage of that IQ. The build quality feels about the same as the Sony NEX models I tried -- a bit plasticky but not cheap or flimsy. It has full manual exposure control when I want it, and very good auto exposure modes.</p>

<p>I shopped around thoroughly first, even considering a consumer grade dSLR and kit zoom with stabilization (a priority for me). There wasn't anything new that was comparable in price. Even a used 16mp DX Nikon dSLR (to maintain compatibility with my existing gear) with tilt screen and the lowest priced VR Nikkor zoom would have cost more. Even at the same price it still would have been larger and heavier than I wanted to carry. And, being familiar with Nikon, I know I'd need to edit almost every photo from raw to get the results I wanted.</p>

<p>Not only does the Fuji X-A1 deliver excellent JPEGs straight from the camera, it also includes a remarkably versatile in-camera raw converter to re-edit photos I've already taken. It's quick, convenient and produces excellent results. It saves me a lot of editing time at the computer. I'm not even sure how to put a value on that, in addition to the camera's already very reasonable price.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>you can get a 2-lens EP-L2 kit for $400 right now.</p>

<p>the GH3 has better video than most digicams so... that explains the price.</p>

[hoi_kwong]

<p>The Fuji X-A1 looks good to me but not sure if it has external mic and audio out jack built-in. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>As Eric noted, it's not that mirrorless cameras are overpriced. It's that full featured mirrorless models with the video capabilities you've specified will cost more. That's where Panasonic seems to have secured its niche.</p>

<p>But if still, rather than video, is the priority, it's tough to beat the Fuji X-A1 and 16-50 kit, if you can still find one at the sub-$500 price it was going for at most retailers until very recently. Amazon still sold them for $450 as of a couple of weeks ago. Prices have gone up at B&H and Adorama, though. The Canon EOS M and a couple other APS sensor mirrorless kits from Sony and Samsung were also very good values, but each has certain compromises at the entry level price point.</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>Price and value are two different things. The difference is that price is intrinsic to the object being bought, and value is based on perception that is intrinsic to the buyer.</p>

<p>Camera buyers who base their purchasing decisions strictly on a numeric price/performance ratio buy entry level DLSR's and either kit lenses or cheap normal prime lenses.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>I thought mirrorless is the bridge between DSLR and Point-and-shoot, DSLR is the King.... obviously I'm wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep.</p>

<p>Initial mirrorless cameras may have looked like bridge cameras, but newer models are competing head to head with DSLRs. The GH3 is a high end model from Panasonic that has great video capabilities - by many reports it sounds like a better video camera than most DSLRs. So you're not going to find it for a low price - think of it as a competitor to your D7100 not a cheap backup camera for it and then you'll understand why the price is at the same level. And in recent news, the GH4 has been preordered beyond expectations, so Panasonic will have trouble to satisfy demand - don't expect that model's price to come down anytime soon either.</p>

<p>If you want inexpensive mirrorless cameras, just look at inexpensive models. There are deals going on amazon and ebay for models like the Olympus E-PM2 with one or two lenses. But as a rule of thumb, most MILCs with integrated EVF are high end models and hold their prices well. It's the entry level models whose price can drop significantly a year or two after release.</p>

[pics]

<p><strong> "Not mentioning the $2300 Sony A7R body"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>That's not a bridge camera, but rather a high end camera for those who have decided they want to go with a mirrorless system instead of something like a D800 (same sensor). Mirrorless encompasses everything from cheap point and shoots to something that may be a secondary/backup camera for some photographers. Some may be used as special purpose systems (thinking Fuji X's for street/travel). Then you have stand alone high end systems or a combination of all the above. All it really means is that the camera doesn't have a reflex mirror.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>If you want ultimate IQ and AF performance and don't mind spending a lot of money and carrying a lot of weight, then a DSLR is the way to go. If you want never to be without a camera and are ok with smallish prints and limited DoF, then a Sony RX100 II is the way to go.<br>

If you want a compromise anywhere between these two, then mirrorless is the way to go. It has become such a large segment that right now it is more appropriate to talk about<em> Mirrored</em> Cameras as the exception. So you can go all the way from an LX7 to an A7R, all mirrorless, inexpensive or expensive lenses and choose a sensor anywhere from 1/1.7" and Full Frame. The only photographic aspect on which they are lagging is in tracking AF.....so far.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>All it really means is that the camera doesn't have a reflex mirror</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the term mirrorless means more that just that.<br>

1. It has to be a digital camera as I have never heard anyone called a film camera mirrorless.<br>

2. It has to provide TTL viewing but without the mirror (They didn't call the Leica M8 or M9 mirrorless, but the new M I think is but I can't confirm on this).<br>

3. I don't think interchangable lens is a requirement to be mirrorless. </p>

[eric_brody]

<p>Price is not the measure of a camera. The Leica M240, like most Leica gear, is beautifully made, has many quirks, is technologically behind the times, and is scarily expensive. The new Leica T is the same when compared to most of the decent Olympus and Fuji equivalents. As Kenneth Tanaka said about Leica T on the "Online Photographer," "2010 called. It wants its camera back. Another day-late-thousand-dollars-too-much product from Leica." It has been said many times in many places, unless you're doing fast action eg sports or making huge (>30x40") enlargements, the better APS-C mirrorless cameras fill the bill at considerably less weight and often less cost. For example, the Canon 85mm f/1.2, a great lens by any standard, costs around $2K, the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 (equivalent to 85mm) costs $1K. I'll match my images with my Fuji 56 against the Canon 85 any day. They're not better, but they're just as good. The DSLR is a technologically obsolete machine, like a pocket watch, they're beautiful and can work well, but do not represent the future of photography. </p>

[hoi_kwong]

<p>Thank you for all your input and advice. Now I come to know that Mirrorless camera is not positioned as bridge between point-sand-shoot and DSLR. Previously, I thought that by scarifying picture quality or other features of high-end DSLR, I can get a less expensive, mobile, better picture quality than p-n-s camera to cope with latest network technology for everyday picture. Obviously, I was wrong. </p>

[andylynn]

You can still get than. Look at Sony, Fuji and M4/3 low end models. (Sony NEX 3n or A3000, Fuji X-A1, Olympus E-PM

series etc.) Before you were looking at the high end of mirrorless.

[hoi_kwong]

<p>Actually, I'm not looking for entry level mirrorless. What I need is a mirrorless with full control (1080 HD movie, nice to have slow motion feature, manual focus, regular hot shoe, audio out and mic in jacks.... etc) and acceptable picture like Nikon D7100 but in small size and light weight. </p>

[andylynn]

Check out the A6000.

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>Previously, I thought that by scarifying picture quality or other features of high-end DSLR, I can get a less expensive, mobile, better picture quality than p-n-s camera to cope with latest network technology for everyday picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Assuming that "scarifying" was meant to be "sacrificing": you are not sacrificing any image quality. DSLRs have no advantage in image quality. And you're not really sacrificing features either when you go for a high end mirrorless model - you're actually gaining <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2012/12/mirrorless-technology.html">features that you could never get in a DSLR</a> as well as leaving behind problems specific to DSLRs. If you sacrifice features, you will get less expensive options, but it sounds like you are trying to get a full featured camera and get it cheap too - that will not be easy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, I'm not looking for entry level mirrorless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, then you have to be prepared to pay more than entry level prices.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I need is a mirrorless with full control (1080 HD movie, nice to have slow motion feature, manual focus, regular hot shoe, audio out and mic in jacks.... etc) and acceptable picture like Nikon D7100 but in small size and light weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose you want a viewfinder too, right? What is your budget?</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"I think the term mirrorless means more that just that.</strong><br /><strong> 1. It has to be a digital camera as I have never heard anyone called a film camera mirrorless.</strong><br /><strong> 2. It has to provide TTL viewing but without the mirror (They didn't call the Leica M8 or M9 mirrorless, but the new M I think is but I can't confirm on this).</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>I was just talking about the literal definition of the word but I understand your point. In today's day and age and considering what the OP was was talking about, I can only assume he wasn't addressing any film cameras. Yes I would agree that TTL viewing is something that would be a prerequisite for what we would call a "mirrorless camera" today. Standard Leicas (film bodies and the modern digital M's) would fall into the rangefinder category, but I dont stay up to date on their products and maybe some of their new stuff would fall into the mirrorless category.</p>

<p><strong>"3. I don't think interchangable lens is a requirement to be mirrorless."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Me neither</p>

[synapticreplay]

<p>Greeting; I had written a review on Mirrorless cameras and the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0625203518/nx10-update-samsung-steps-up-edging-to-own-mirrorless-camera-market-what-ive-learned">NX-10 here</a>; it offers some good point I think and some considerations you may be looking for. Dated a year ago and new camera models have change but the info is still relevant.<br /> (currently for me, I believe Samsung is now headed in the wrong direction but Sony, Olympus and Nikon are on course perhaps IMO).<br>

Cheers</p>

[hoi_kwong]

<p>Thank you Andy. <br>

I did some research this afternoon about the Sony A6000, looks good except no external mic or earpiece jacks. Quite often, I need to record DIY video that requires wireless microphone. </p>

[hoi_kwong]

<p>Thank you Andy. <br>

I did some research this afternoon about the Sony A6000, looks good except no external mic or earpiece jacks. Quite often, I need to record DIY video that requires wireless microphone. </p>

[douglas_green]

<p>The Panasonic GH3 is known to be an exceptional video camera - many professional videographers use it as their portable video rig. It is also a highly competent still-image camera, in the class of many APS-C format DSLRs.</p>

[hoi_kwong]

<p>I use HDR Efex Pro to compose picture. It could be my problem, I don't always get satisfactory HDR picture. They were either too dramatic or the unrealistic color despite I tried different fine tune settings after merging 5 picture. <br>

I'm learning LR/Enfuse now. Any good HDR software suggestion ? </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>since you have specific requirements for high-end features-- video w/ wireless mic jacks-- you are going to pay a high-end price for something that satisfies those requirements. you cant expect champagne on a beer budget. on the bright side, mirrorless or DLSR rigs cost a fraction of full-size video camcorders. the best option for you may be to wait until after the GH4 is released and buy a GH3 at discount prices.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I wanted a "larger sensored bridge camera" after using bridge cameras for near a decade and with almost no interest in a DSLR except as a means to use extension tubes and bellows I had left over from film days. The arrival of MFT meant it was redundant and was given away<br>

So I choose a Panasonic G3 and was frustrated as all heck with the kit lens [ 14-42 /28-84AoV ] after 35-430 of my bridges ... so I got the 14-140 lens. {28-280 AoV ] .<br>

What with freight and taxes the all up cost was $2000 when I could have got a twin lens DSLR kit for around $1200.<br>

Subsequently I bought a GH2 and gave the G3 and the kit lens to an worthy cause so we add another few hundred for that.<br>

So I now have a bridge/DSLR or large sensor bridge camera however you like to put it and I paid for my desires :-)</p>

<p>To the original question I have always assumed that lack of production run makes for high prices and developing something new ... on the other hand content with a 2/h body I got a Olympus EPL-1 for $180 ... they are around $140 now for use with my legacy lenses and its IBIS.</p>