DSLR vs mirrorless

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Interesting comment from Howard about the Coolpix A. I think this is the natural "mirrorless option" for Nikon at least in the near term. As Shun said, anybody can predict the future. So I predict Nikon will offer an FX version of the Coolpix A within 3 years. I am unable to predict the focal length - Nikon went with 28mm for the Coolpix A, but I would like to see the FX version go with something in the 35mm to 50mm range. I predict I will not be able to afford the camera :)</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>That would be the forthcoming 300/4 Pro by Olympus (not f/2.8).</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>That would be the forthcoming 300/4 Pro by Olympus (not f/2.8).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right - Peter did you flip apertures for the 7-14mm and 300mm in your post above? Olympus has announced a 7-14mm f/2.8 and then a 300mm f/4, correct?</p>

[5711]

<p>hey jdm</p>

<p>xerox developed the first ideas of a laptop in the late 1960's<br /> the first working laptop was build in 1976, the xeorox notetaker<br /> startrek was aired for the first time in 1966<br /> startrek however did have portable computers<br /> look at the ..let's call it healing-device of mccoy</p>

<p>so technically they did have portable computers, which is the definition of a laptop, a small portable computer.</p>

<p>i can remember that the first idea of a laptop was shown of as a model..i think it was build from cardboard or so..and that was before startrek, as far as i know, but ic annot remember the details..had been to long ..i am starting to forget things..(i am not that old..university..)</p>

<p>one more thing though,..<br>

as this has turned into a wishlist forum post, as any nikon vs canon or whatever debate goes (thx shun ;) )<br /> i will conrtibute to this wish list that i insist on nikon makeing the d5 a left handed camera!</p>

<p>finally...revenge will be ours !</p>

<p> </p>

[Thomas J.]

<p>If you shoot any events or weddings, paid work, and don't have a big ol' Nikon or Canon and accompanying big glass, well....you're not shooting events or weddings. Period.<br>

Otherwise, mirrorless cameras are fun and good for travel and walkabouts.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>As a M43 user, I find many of the negative comments here about m43 are just not accurate. The bottom line is that, as with ANY camera system, aside from having the right glass, knowing your camera intimately is paramount.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm pretty sure that mirrorless cameras will be the future. The DSLR is simply a hangover from the days when the only way to view through the taking lens was to use a mechanical system with a mirror diverting light from lens to viewing screen. There's now absolutely no need for that cumbersome arrangement with digital sensors and LCD/TFT monitor screens. Only user resistance to overcome. As with Canon's pellicle non-moving mirror system introduced in the 1970s.</p>

<p>I, for one, would certainly like to see a full-frame mirrorless camera on sale. Taking Nikon F mount lenses of course! After all, it would be just like a current DSLR, only in permanent Live View mode. A tilt/swivel/swing (and possibly detachable) LCD would be great. I'm also sure that in a short time we'll have head-up type wearable displays immune to ambient light washout.</p>

<p>Still, the mechanical mirrored SLR has had a good run of over 100 years - I have an old 1/4 plate SLR from around 1920, and similar designs of SLR were around for at least a decade before that.</p>

<p>Incidentally, film isn't totally reliable in extreme cold either. The base and emulsion get very brittle and the film can snap as it's being wound on. The low humidity of cold conditions encourages build up of static charge on the film as well, and can give rise to spider-like discharge tracks; ruining the image. And metering and AF systems, since they rely on batteries, can be unreliable.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I've been thinking about eventually moving to a Fuji X platform for a travel camera, </p>

</blockquote>

<p>i've done this (with the XE1) and for travel, its hard to top the lighter weight and versatility of this system compared to a DSLR rig. i can basically squeeze a two-body setup into a fanny pack with 4-5 lenses. All of the Fuji lenses i have tried so far are excellent as well. But the issue with Fuji and all mirrorless is that as soon as you put a telephoto lens on there, you lose a lot of the size advantage. maybe the m4/3 systems are less restricting because of their smaller telezooms, but then as Shun says, you're giving up some inherent low-light ability due to sensor size. ive often thought m4/3 was a dead end because of sensor size, but then again, the all-in-one LX100 is really compelling with the fast fixed zoom lens and 4k video. Mirrorless' achilles heel in general is AF, although that's starting to change with the latest generation. not sure it will ever be good enough for sports/action, but for landscape, street, some PJ stuff and even portraits, i have no qualms about using this system, especially when i dont need to pull out the big guns. <br>

<br>

Where Nikon is concerned, it seems they dont really have a plan, except to try not to undercut their DSLR line. the Nikon 1 system isnt that bad for what it is, but IMO the UI is a bigger source of frustration than the sensor. The Coolpix A could have been executed way better IMO -- faster AF and a range of models with fix-focal lenses (28/35/50/85, plus a 24-105/4 zoom model) and a bit faster apertures on the prime lenses (at least f/2) would have been a great idea.<br>

<br>

We do see Nikon slimming down its current-gen DSLRs like the d5500 a bit, but there's some confusion with the overall product line. the d5500 has the flip-out screen for video, but you have to upsize to the 7xxx series to get external mic jacks, and you lose the flip screen. it's really a shame nikon doesn't make even one DX pancake lens, but put the 35/1.8 G DX on any compact body and you have a pretty capable imaging tool with a small footprint.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Where Nikon is concerned, it seems they dont really have a plan, except to try not to undercut their DSLR line.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once upon a time, Kodak's strategy was to slow down their digital development so as not to undercut their then highly profitable film business. We all know how that worked out.</p>

<p>Those companies that are focusing on mirrorless are those that have not much success in their DSLR business, so they have to try something very different. I would imagine that Canon and Nikon have plans for mirrorless, but the technology is not mature enough yet for them to make a major move. Unlike a lot of the other companies, Canon and Nikon are still making decent money from cameras. For some of the others, who knows how much longer they can sustain losses before they have to pull the plug. I have gone through that with Contax a decade ago and don't want to be stuck again.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"DSLR vs mirrorless"</p>

<p>"Just want to hear opinions on this topic."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even though both disappoint me when it comes to manual focusing; I use and love them both.</p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p><<i have seen images taken in norway or iceland too..>></p>

<p>Iceland is actually pretty warm. It's in the Gulf Stream. I've been there twice and plan to go back in winter. Temps there are routinely in the +20s F range, where in the Dakotas it can easily get forty degrees colder than that. Looks like a great place to go for warmer weather during winter break to me! I've never had any problems with cold here in the Dakotas or Minnesota. I'm routinely out at night in temps of -5 to -15F, and don't flinch when it drops into the -30s. I have several batteries in an inner pocket. I don't see any issue other than battery life.<br>

Mary--<br>

Temperature scales C & F "cross" at -40. I.e., -40F is the same temp as -40C. So, -10C isn't very cold at all.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>If you shoot any events or weddings, paid work, and don't have a big ol' Nikon or Canon and accompanying big glass, well....you're not shooting events or weddings. Period.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't understand why you said that. Have you tested? Or were you talking about the perception of being "professional"? Please elaborate. I haven't done it yet but I don't see why an Olympus E-M1 (mentioning this particular model because I am not familiar with the other M4/3s) with equivalent lenses cannot shoot an event or wedding successfully. I am not saying I am right. I am just curious why you said that.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>With a DSLR I can always manual focus like I always did with a film SLR. I tried several mirrorless including the Fuji XT-1 and Olympus OMD-E-M1 and found I can't manual focus them easily. I've tried focus peaking but that doesn't work well for me either.<br>

But I realize that most people don't really care about manual focusing. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I can see the time when a shutter is some kind of electro-chemical device like a screen with an opaque LCD which momentarily becomes transparent. It would be silent. What about the aperture mechanism? That would also be a kind of screen with an LCD which momentarily becomes a perfect circle with opaque edges and of the diameter needed for the desired exposure. It would also be silent. At that point whether you are using an SLR or an EVF it would work quietly, with no vibration in the camera body or the lens except for the focusing right before the exposure. The SLR could have a pellicle mirror. This was brought out by Canon in the 1960s, not the 1970s. </p>

[donbright]

<p>I never considered myself a general shooter, although the level of my Photographs may say otherwise to some, I don't think a world with iPhones only is going to elevate terms of higher craft. Also, this forum is more than general Photography IMO, sometimes mundane, but, hey you got to have contrast in everything. There's space in flicker for iPhone Photography, move right along. Not that there's anything wrong with that!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Or were you talking about the perception of being "professional"? Please elaborate. I haven't done it yet but I don't see why an Olympus E-M1</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People have captured wedding with 35mm film for decades. So I am sure any higher-end Micro 4/3 camera can get the jobs done, technically.</p>

<p>Whether using a small Micro 4/3 camera makes one look "professional" enough is another matter. Once I shot a wedding with a friend, and a guest immediately commented on the "big lens" I had on my Nikon DSLR. That lens was a 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, big enough to impress one guest. The body I had in that occasion was an old D100 from over a decade ago; at the time it was a "modern" DSLR. I am sure any current Olympus Micro 4/3 camera can produce better results than the D100 can.</p>

<p>But sometimes perception is more important than reality.</p>

[Two23]

<p><<People have captured wedding with 35mm film for decades. So I am sure any higher-end Micro 4/3 camera can get the jobs done, technically.>></p>

<p>I agree. They are still better than 35mm film. Maybe not quite as good as a Hassleblad, but the images would be cleaner. With the best lenses and held to a lower ISO (like a Hassleblad would be), they might just pull about even.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Ideally I would like to use the simplest, least cumbersome, and least ostentatious equipment to get a job done. I had gone from using various flash brackets in the past to using none. And I still end up carrying a big heavy bag. Won't it be great if all this weight and size are reduced substantially. To me there doesn't seem to be a reason why a good quality M4/3 system cannot achieve equivalent results. That's why I would like to know what he was thinking or whether he had made an A-B comparison (referring to the poster who claimed that one must have big Nikon/Canon equipment to do a paid job).</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>The joker in the deck is the long-term potential to have nearly flat lenses. The technology of bending light with a flat surface already exists and is now being refined. It might be 10 years or 30 before it's good enough for quality photography, but don't be surprised if the days of big, heavy glass end someday.</p>

<p>We could end up shooting full frame or even medium-format mirrorless with almost no lens to speak of.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Work = DSLR<br>

Fun/Volunteer Work = Mirrorless <br>

There is still no comparison IMO.</p>

[5711]

<p>We had some problems processing your entry:</p>

<ul>

<li>Photo.net thinks you have included an obscenity in your post. If you didn't, please let us know via contact@photo.net and we will take a look at the situation. Please include a copy of the text you were trying to post.</li>

<li>Some four-letter words are not allowed here.</li>

<li>Photo.net thinks you have included an obscenity in your post. If you didn't, please let us know via contact@photo.net and we will take a look at the situation. Please include a copy of the text you were trying to post.</li>

</ul>

<p>........................</p>

<p>the forum won't let me post my awnser.<br /> and maybe that is a good thing.</p>

<p>wishlist nikon canon micro 4 3 mirrorless dslr dxo mark -blahblahblah</p>

 

[5711]

<p>google<br /> photography fails</p>

<p>gear<br /> D O E S N O T <br /> matter<br /> !!<br /> at all !</p>

<p>someone close this threat or i am dying of an heartattack ..</p>

[5711]

<p>let's talk about star trek instead.</p>

<p>wouldn't you agree, dear jdm, that the new installments of the franchise lack the charm the older films?<br /> i however find them more convincing as action scifi popcorn cinema as i would have said the older versions do.<br /> one might argue this has to do with the time the films were made but i strongly disagree.<br /> alien, the first film of the franchise, was also released in 1979, exact same year as the first star trek film.<br /> alien wipes the floor with the first startrek in any aspect i can think of.</p>

<p>what comes to mind regarding the newer star trek installments is, that they<br /> somehow lack the wisdom of their captains and are not that empathetic as the older ones were.</p>

<p>also cpt. krik kissed ohura during a time in which this was problematic.<br>

(in case you dnt know: white guy kissing a black woman on television in the usa in the 1960s).</p>

<p>also women are equal to men in start trek.</p>

<p>so i would argue, or more or less add to my last comment rgarding the initial post from JDM, that start trek did have visions that were far more important than to invision the design of a laptop as we now know it.</p>

<p>to get even further away from micro 4 3rds and other things that do not matter:</p>

<p>should the next startrek movie have the moral and humanist approach of the old films or should it degrade further to plain stupid action?</p>

<p>discuss.</p>

<p> </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I see people in this thread mistake mirrorless for a smaller sensor camera.</p>

<p>Sony A7S for instance is mirrorless and full frame. It beats all dslrs in low light capability (including D4/D3s/Df etc) and also has arguably the best video quality of any mirrorless/dslr camera today.</p>

<p>Video is actually one area where a lot of mirrorless cameras have the dslr severely beat. For instance the Panasonic GH4 is another one of the top cameras for shooting video.</p>

<p> </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>No mistake a mirrorless doesn't have a reflex viewfinder which I want. I decided this almost 40 years ago that I want a reflex viewfinder so I bought the Nikon instead of the Leica. I still want the reflex viewfinder.</p>