DSLR vs mirrorless

[5711]

<p><a href="http://books.google.at/books?id=DhfnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA309&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false">http://books.google.at/books?id=DhfnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA309&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false</a></p>

<p>read something, maybe?</p>

<p>some of you might enjoy this though:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canadiannaturephotographer.com/Photography_for_Beginers.pdf">http://www.canadiannaturephotographer.com/Photography_for_Beginers.pdf</a></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Although gear =\= photography skills, it does matter.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Sony A7S for instance is mirrorless and full frame. It beats all dslrs in low light capability</em></p>

<p>A good sensor in itself is not sufficient to make a good low light camera. Useful autofocus tracking of a moving subject in low light is also needed, as are fast lenses.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ilkka, not to mention the difference between the lenses available for Nikon/Canon vs. Sony.</p>

[Thomas J.]

<p>@Mary Doo</p>

<p>Yes I have compared a Lumix G6 and both a Nikon D700 and Nikon D7000 when I shot freelance assignments for my local newspaper as well as many corporate events. I am not a full time pro but work at least once every month to two months. I don't shoot weddings either although I've done one.....enough to know that I don't want to do them.<br /> <br />The biggest issue I found with mirrorless cameras in dark rooms, where many of these events take place, is noise at high ISO's, particularly 1600 and 3200, and yes even with flash. I had a 14mm f/2.8 Panny lens, which is good, but no comparison to Nikkor 35mm f1.8 though. There are other issues....AF speed and tracking better on Nikon as well as the quickness of changing settings. Also, Nikon pro lenses and flashes are second to none, but this is strictly my opinion. I don't care about what equipment other photographers are using. For me, when I'm being paid good money by a corporation, event planner, or newspaper (they don't pay that much) to shoot their events, I need to deliver really clean shots and I need to trust my equipment so I can fully concentrate on capturing the decisive moment and not spend days in post production fixing images. My Nikons work splendidly for me and I won't use anything else for paid shoots. I'm sure many photogs are using mirrorless professionally, but it's not for me.....maybe it is for you. I sold that Lumix G6 I had, btw.<br /><br />I still think M4/3 cameras are great for travel and walking around town, they produce great images.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>You are basing your opinions of mirrorless for professional work on a Pany G6? . . . sigh . . .</p>

[andylynn]

<p>A G6 is a mid-grade camera. If you want to compare to a D700 or even a D7000, look at the GH4 or the Olympus OM-D series. Those are fast cameras with metal bodies and weather sealing. In that class you also have the Fuji X-T1 and some Sony options (A7II, Nex 7...)</p>

[5711]

<p>since last week i own a nikon d4s.<br /> my walk around camera is my beat up d3..fancy that.</p>

<p>pick up a different camera.<br /> you will notice it changes the way you take photos.<br /> do this alot.<br /> you will improve.<br /> and sooner or later you will come to the point where you buy a holga.<br /> for me..that point was after my first publication in national geographic.<br /> i wanted a camera that is not...never..ever..doing exactly what i want.<br /> something that surprises me and thereby changes the way i see things.</p>

<p>perfection is good and fine and something you should strife for.<br /> in that respect, gear does matter.</p>

<p>but better gear will never ... E V E R ... make you a better photographer.<br /> never...</p>

<p>get to the point where your current camera cannot do what you need.<br /> invest in something.<br /> but a good photo to me leaves you with a feeling, a sense of purpose, tells a story...a photo you will<br /> remember the next day.</p>

<p>look at your favourites.<br /> how many of those photos were taken with 10k euros of equipment?</p>

<p>for me, i know its just a few</p>

<p>gear<br /> D O E S N O T<br>

matter<br /> !!</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Both types for work and play. BTW, cell phones are mirrorless cameras. The vast majority of photos taken today are on cell phones.<br>

Mirrorless is advancing very fast. Some do now use both contrast and phase detection for AF, and approach speeds of SLRs. But for some things DSLR's are better, and will remain so, especially if requiring reach. Yes, pros can and do use mirrorless and/or both. As people get older, mirrorless grows more attractive. Lenses on many are superb.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The biggest issue I found with mirrorless cameras in dark rooms, where many of these events take place, is noise at high ISO's, particularly 1600 and 3200, and yes even with flash<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's not an issue with current-gen mirrorless, tho... my Fuji XE1 is cleaner than my D300s at high ISO. and the Sony A7s has better performance, reputedly, than the Nikon D3s. It is accurate to note that Nikon/Canon have more complete lens options in most cases, but mirrorless is catching up fast. nearly all manufacturers now have equivalent 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 zooms--except, surprisingly, Sony FE-mount--and lenses like the Fuji 50-140/2.8 shave 1.2 lbs off the Nikon equivalent and around $500 off the price, neither of which are insignificant. the only real issue i see with using m4/3 for weddings would be if you intend on making ginormous prints out of them or need to shoot available light above ISO 3200. The notion that Uncle Bob would laugh at your puny gear set-up is more of a psychological issue. </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>I like photographic gear as much as photography. So it does matter to me.</p>

[5711]

<p>fair enough!<br>

that is a good point bebu! :)</p>

<p>i only get angry about gearheads because it always has this swing to it as it were an excuse and this drives me crazy</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>One can speak of merits and demerits of individual cameras but DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras cannot be compared, not yet anyway, because DSLR represent a seasoned technology while Mirrorless cameras are a young and developing technology. There some things you cannot use a mirrorless for, like sports action. The gap between the two technologies will narrow to the point where mirrorless cameras will become professional grade. Then it will incorporate the best of DSLR and RF cameras.</p>

<p>Here is one example of Mirrorless virtue: Canon FDn 200/2.8 + Fujifilm X-E1. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Mirrorless cameras are not a "new techology"; they existed long before SLRs and in the digital era they have existed side by side from the beginning. Mirrorless <em>interchangeable lens</em> <em>digital</em> cameras however are relatively new. Whether DSLRs improve faster than mirrorless cameras or slower, is anyone's guess. A mirrorless camera has the disadvantage that it must measure the focus offset to target using the same sensor that the image is formed with. An image forming sensor and a distance measurement sensor are fundamentally different, which is why DSLRs focus track better using lenses that provide a shallow depth of field as they have separate, specialized sensors for each task. A mirrorless camera can focus on a static subject more accurately because the image is formed by the same sensor as is used for AF (in principle DSLR live view can do the same), but the mirrorless design becomes a disadvantage if there is low light and the subject starts to move. Embedding phase measurement sensors inside the main imaging sensor helps to achieve some degree of moving subject tracking in mirrorless cameras in bright light, but it seems to compromise image quality and work poorly in low light. I am not sure if this problem will ever have a solution that would satisfy the requirements of sports and documentary photography in low light. It might, but then again it might not.</p>

<p>However, irrespective of what happens to autofocus tracking in low light, many people will choose the smaller cameras for their advantages, and the different technologies can coexist. </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Looked at some of the Mirrorless products last night and the Fujifilm X-T1 is rather intriguing. Two things about it, first, reviewers rave over the image quality, and second, the viewfinder is said to be big, bright, crisp, and operates in real time with no display lag.</p>

<p>Plus, the range of lenses is rather broad, and the Fujinon lenses are very good to excellent, as has pretty much always been true.</p>

<p>I like the idea of a smaller camera that fits in nice little camera bags so you can carry them everywhere. In fact, my short list now includes a trip to the local camera shop to check the X-T1 out. I could envision a transition from Nikon DLSRs to the Fujifilm X-T1.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Two things about it, first, reviewers rave over the image quality, and second, the viewfinder is said to be big, bright, crisp, and operates in real time with no display lag.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How much I trust a review highly depends on the reputation of the reviewer. Dan, I have no idea who the reviewer is, and it doesn't matter to me.</p>

<p>Mirrorless EVF display lag can be almost negligible nowadays. However, I still prefer the view from an optical viewfinder, but that comes with the price of having a mirror. Check out the EVF in some high contrast situation, e.g. indoors with a window showing some bright outside. If the contrast is too much for the sensor/EVF to handle, it can be unpleasant. With an optical viewfinder, your eye pupil can still close down.</p>

<p>Just about any brand can make great lenses in these days, e.g. Sigma, Tamron ... Hasselblad has ditch Zeiss and uses Fujinon lenses for the H series, so I am sure Fuji is fully capable of making great lenses.</p>

<p>However, I have mixed feelings about small cameras. If anything, I think the Nikon D7000 series is already too small. I know that plenty people will disagree, but personally, I have no problem at all taking a D7000 or D800 everywhere. It is those big 500mm/f4 with a matching tripod that are problems.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Check out the EVF in some high contrast situation, e.g. indoors with a window showing some bright outside. If the contrast is too much for the sensor/EVF to handle, it can be unpleasant. With an optical viewfinder, your eye pupil can still close down.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a good point--the XE1's EVF is very small and low-rez-- but the XT1 has an eyecup on its EVF and is much bigger. that alone could be a reason to get an XT1. or you could just buy a loupe for the LCD monitor on any other mirrorless camera and compose from that ;). one of the biggest reasons to go with Fuji, though is their after-the-fact firmware--they just released another one for the XT1--which shows a commitment to customer care Canikon haven't developed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have no problem at all taking a D7000 or D800 everywhere. It is those big 500mm/f4 with a matching tripod that are problems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>im playing devil's advocate here, but you can get out to 600mm at 5.6 with a consumer-grade m4/3 tele... a nikon 1 with the 180/2.8 would be almost 500mm at 2.8, although you wouldnt get the subject isolation of an exotic bazooka, you also wouldnt have to mortgage a house to buy one. so that fact alone is worth mentioning. i know you shoot surf, Shun... is there anything which would prevent you from, say, rigging up a nikon 1 with a tele for that? you'd actually have a much faster frame rate than any DSLR, and at base ISO, you should be able to get decent/printable shots without lugging a heavy tripod. (note to nikon: put a 5-axis stabilizer in the V5.) </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Eric, sensor size matters. I am not very interested in going smaller than APS-C.</p>

<p>See the bird image I posted yesterday to Barry's D7200 thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dCJy<br>

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dDVH-556055384.jpg</p>

<p>That kind of exposure setting is very representative for what I shoot. For any birds, 1/1250 sec to 1/2000 sec is typical. Even at f4, I frequently need ISO 500, 800 and up. Using base ISO on some Nikon 1 CX sensor or micro 4/3 is simply not realistic for me. Additionally, the pixel pitch on something like CX is going to have lots of limitations with diffraction.</p>

<p>It is not mirror or mirrorless, it is sensor size.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"(note to nikon: put a 5-axis stabilizer in the V5.)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. That, and a couple other features, might sell me on committing to the 1 System for most of my candid snapshot photography. Sensor stabilization would definitely tempt me to upgrade from the V1:</p>

<ul>

<li>Adding metering with non-Nikkor lenses (Fuji X-cameras can do this, using cheap adapters). I can guesstimate exposure pretty well. But I'd rather not.</li>

<li>Focus peaking aid for manual focus lenses.</li>

<li>Reducing buffer lag on the viewfinder. Even the V1 has no significant perceptible LCD/EVF lag when panning - it's much better than the Fuji X-A1, especially in dim light. But the viewfinder blackout during buffering with faster framerates when shooting raw causes me to miss some fast moving candid snaps, or just take wild guesses at composition. That's the main hindrance to using the 1 System for action. Not the AF speed, framerates or overall quickness, but the viewfinder blackout.</li>

</ul>

 

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I think the big difference is just the viewfinder. EVF or Reflex viewfinder. Mirrorless has some inherit advantages and some disadvantages but they are improving and closing that gap.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>As I remember, this question has been asked many times. And I have heard a lot of answers not comparing DSLR with Mirrorless, but instead comparing brand with brand and/or model with model. Even when we compare EVF with Reflex viewfinder we often compare the lag of EVF and also comment about how it is being and will improve to reduce the lag... I think that is still comparing some current models and hoping about some other models in the near future.</p>

<p>I just want to mention the mere important fact (that is never going to change) that a mirrorless is just less a mirror. That allows the mirrorless to be smaller (and one less thing to make) but at the same time forbidding it to have a reflex viewfinder. So the decision is easy to make. If you want a smaller camera body, go with the mirrorless. If you need a reflex viewfinder, you need an SLR.</p>

<p>By the way, I want to compare an EVF and a reflex viewfinder, not about lag because lag can be improved and people have different tolerance about lag. One difference between an EVF and a reflex viewfinder is that the reflex viewfinder tries to to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at, but an EVF tries to estimate what we are going to get. Just the idea attracts a lot of people to the EVF, but how can they estimate the result of a flash exposure? (I am not talking about the current models, but about any possible improvements in the future). Usually, EVF will show a dark result when you turn the flash on. And how about an exposure of 10 seconds? Well, they will take the result of 1/30 s (or so) and multiply by 300. And how accurate that can be? will they estimate the camera shake also?<br />By the way, you always see how your hands are shaking in the reflex viewfinder, have you tried to see how IS effect is in an EVF? What if an EVF is just trying to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at? The way our eyes see is pretty complicated.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I shoot with Nikon D800 and the best Nikkor lens and I shoot Sony a7R with the best available lenses from Sony. I use the Nikon for professional work and the Sony for travel and personal work. When Sony achieves some professional capabilities I might switch to Sony completely because of smaller size and lighter weight. If I get a chance I will post up some Sony pictures on my website and provide a follow up. I did post a panoramic of the Kilauea Caldera on my page of this website. Nothing complicated: Sony a7r, tripod and software...the level of detail is quite remarkable. If interested, email me and I will send the hi-res file to you.<br>

For me, size, weight and easy of sensor cleaning is a big plus for the mirrorless. The IQ for Sony a7R is excellent, but autofocus is a problems, off camera flash support and some other needed professional enhancements. Hope the A9 addresses these issues.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>There are a couple other large differences in mirrorless. With an SLR, the mirror assembly is used to route some light to the AF module in the bottom of the mirror box, and the prism is used to route some of the light to the exposure meter in the prism assembly. With mirrorless, these are done using the image sensor, and so far, the image sensor does a poorer job of both critical functions. That may be changing, as I understand the Fujifilm X-T1 can accomplish predictive focus tracking at 8 frames per second. And, a live histogram visible in the EVF greatly assists in setting or compensating exposure.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>For any birds, 1/1250 sec to 1/2000 sec is typical. Even at f4, I frequently need ISO 500, 800 and up. Using base ISO on some Nikon 1 CX sensor or micro 4/3 is simply not realistic for me. Additionally, the pixel pitch on something like CX is going to have lots of limitations with diffraction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>f/4 and ISO 800 seems within the capabilities--just barely--of the 20mp BSI sensor in the J5, based on what ive read about that same sensor in the Sony RX series. and for shooting surf, which is generally sunny conditions, you could probably go with a lower ISO. im not saying that setup is ideal, but it could make sense, particularly for travel in hot climates. <br>

<br>

when i was in Baja California Sur last year on vacation, we were walking along the beach and came across a surfing competition. Now, obviously, for vacation shooting, lugging a heavy tripod, full-size DSLR, and a 500mm lens across a sandy beach with temperatures in the high 90s with high humidity just in case you come across something worth shooting is going to be rather hellish and impractical. doubt you'd be able to make it more than a mile from the hotel before you gave up. i had my Fuji mirrorless rig with me, but didn't have a telephoto. the Nikon 1 equipped with a compact tele, with its AF capabilities and high FPS, would have been perfect for such chance shooting opportunities. The Fuji, meanwhile, was great for street shooting in Los Cabos and La Paz -- the 14/2.8 is a spectacular lens optically, and much more compact than any comparable DX or FX lens i own. So while i dont see mirrorless as a replacement for DSLR per se in every situation, for things like hiking, adventure travel, some PJ applications--situations where a compact, light kit is advantageous--it could be preferable. Would i move to an all-mirrorless set up? Not yet, but that time is nearing closer and closer. </p>

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, I want to compare an EVF and a reflex viewfinder, not about lag because lag can be improved and people have different tolerance about lag. One difference between an EVF and a reflex viewfinder is that the reflex viewfinder tries to to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at, but an EVF tries to estimate what we are going to get. Just the idea attracts a lot of people to the EVF, but how can they estimate the result of a flash exposure? (I am not talking about the current models, but about any possible improvements in the future). Usually, EVF will show a dark result when you turn the flash on. And how about an exposure of 10 seconds? Well, they will take the result of 1/30 s (or so) and multiply by 300. And how accurate that can be? will they estimate the camera shake also?<br />By the way, you always see how your hands are shaking in the reflex viewfinder, have you tried to see how IS effect is in an EVF? What if an EVF is just trying to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at? The way our eyes see is pretty complicated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I gotta say John, I have little idea what you are talking about.<br>

An OVF has limitations and great features that we old photographers are quite used to while these new EVFs have some great advantages and limitations that are new to us and some find troublesome. As a D800, GX7, and (formerly A7r) shooter I have no problem going between them as they each have their strengths and weaknesses that I work around and still manage to get great images.<br>

Sure the EVFs on my mirrorless cameras can get grainy and laggy in really low light and sometimes don't have the dynamic range that I'd like, but I really like being able to perfectly manually focus, have all sorts of info in the viewfinder and actually see the true depth of field.<br>

My D800 is great in bright light and very little time lag, but I really hate guessing if the focus is correct (w/o having to resort to the kludge that LiveView is on Nikon DSLRs) with my fast glass and I don't like being stuck at an ~f/2.8-~f/4 effective DOF in the viewfinder with my f/2 (or faster) glass.<br>

Each technology has it's strengths and weaknesses, it's just that many are reacting to the weaknesses of current EVFs w/o, in many cases, realizing the real positives. Plus lots of the EVFs of a couple mirrorless models ago were not very good, but the most current models are quite good.</p>