How Good Are They?

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The real problem: which mirrorless system? They're all great. Olympus makes amazing cameras, the Sonys are amazing, the Fujis have such sharp files, etc. It's not an easy choice!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a good problem to have, when you think about it.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I went from a 7D to an EOS-M, M2, and then a Sony a6000. The Sony is an amazing camera with IQ that I think is better than the 7D's, especially in lower light (less noise, and it has better dynamic range overall). The Sony is amazingly customizable, and its speed is incredible. I love it! That being said though, I find the 7D much more robust, and there are few cameras that can best the 7D/100-400 combination. One of my biggest gripes with mirrorless, specifically Sony mirrorless, is the lens selection. While the primes are nice and my copy of the 16-50mm was actually quite impressive, I haven't been able to find a long lens for the a6000 that compares favorably (in my opinion) to the 7D/100-400 combo. I most highly recommend the Sony a6000 for its amazing versatility and absolutely superb performance, but the 7D, despite its age, is still a phenomenal camera that I would keep if I were you, and use alongside the Sony. To me, that is a perfect pair and the best combo of mirrorless and dslr.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>The mirrorless has many advantages over the DSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Major advantage is less bulk. But you pay a hefty price for that small package. For the same price, you get a dslr that performs as good or better but is more cumbersome.</p>

<p>Do the calculation yourself: compare your 7D and your lenses with a Fuji X pro 2 with equivalent lenses. You'll probably pay more for the Fuji system and end up with the same image quality with less bulk.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It reduces size and weight compared to a DSLR while giving you the same image quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really the same quality. The larger format always has better output.</p>

<p>This olympus 40-150mm f2.8 for instance costs the same or actually more than a canon 70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4 IS, yet is much worse at isolating sibjects and producing a nice bokeh:<br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/m43/945_olympus40150f28pro">http://www.photozone.de/m43/945_olympus40150f28pro</a></p>

<p><strong>Personally, I find the weigth & size advantage appealing but it comes at a price. Mirrorless sacrifices control, low light performance, AF, sync speed... That's a big sacrifice if you're shooting seriously. On the other hand, for the casual photographer, the price tag that comes with mirrorless is a bit steep.</strong></p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I buy meat by weight, not cameras. Furthermore, none of the statements in the last (bold) paragraph are true across the board. "Control" is too vague, but I have all the controls on a Sony mod 2 as my D3, and 9 programmable buttons, not just one. You can't even say larger format is better. Most of the APS-C and M43 cameras have better image quality than my D3, and far better low light performance.</p>

<p>It is one thing to start a thread, but quite another to ignore the responses.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I was reminded a few minutes ago from another thread announcing new Sony lenses that if you compare the weight of a D800 to that of a Sony a7RII body you will find them very similar AND a Sony 24-70 f2.8 lens weighs essentially the same as the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. So in reality at least for the Sony a7R series, the mirrorless camera really are not lighter than a regular DLSR. <br>

Sorry to rain on that parade!</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I bought a Sony NEX 7 used about a year and a half ago -- my first and so far only mirrorless. I wanted to get an A7-series, but just couldn't justify the expense at the time. Still can't. And while I'd love to have an FF mirrorless, I've found the NEX 7 to be an outstanding camera. From a practical standpoint, there are very few situations where a photographer really needs more than 24 mp, which is what the NEX 7 has.</p>

<p>My main reason for buying a mirrorless was so I could adapt <em>all</em> my manual focus lenses to it, not just some of them, the way it was with my EOS. I have a rather sizable collection of MF glass and I still use it often.</p>

<p>Most of what I don't like about my NEX 7 has to do with its viewfinder. It is adequate for most purposes where bright sun isn't involved, but it lacks that razor sharp quality that can be found only with an optical viewfinder. Using it outdoors, especially in action situations, has been an exercise in frustration. The viewfinder grows rather dim in bright sun conditions, making it more difficult to focus, even when "focus peaking" is used. And when trying to track fast action, I find that the off-center viewfinder makes things more difficult. I'm used to tracking an object with both eyes. I follow it with my left and then line it up in the viewfinder with my right. But wihen I do this the image is usually not in the viewfinder at all, and so I end up casting about, looking for it. Wasting time and best shots. Very frustrating. My guess is that the A7-series doesn't have this same problem, though.</p>

[ruslan]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Personally, I find the weigth & size advantage appealing but it comes at a price. Mirrorless sacrifices control, low light performance, AF, sync speed... That's a big sacrifice if you're shooting seriously. On the other hand, for the casual photographer, the price tag that comes with mirrorless is a bit steep.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have got it to a "T". <br />I have seen a lot of examples on dpreview. Dpreview shows everything! No debates about evident! Even my Pentax K-50 delivers overall picture quality unreachable for any M4/3 Olympus, including E-M1 coz it has 60% bigger sensor - see dprevieew's samples with no NR (raw). I don't want to take screenshots and upload them here. I took E-M5 in a store and I got a feeling of handling a toy - with my SMALL hands! Looking into the VF I felt as if I was watching TV or recording a video - seriously.<br /><br />Fujifilm X-pro 2's ISO 800 - have a look . Is this with a $ 1700 body ?! No sensation. No wonders. <br /><br /><a href="http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS4000x6000~sample_galleries/5097268292/8676304693.jpg">http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS4000x6000~sample_galleries/5097268292/8676304693.jpg</a><br /><br /><br /> And then have a look at the samples of Pentax 645, Nikon Df, EOS-1Dx, D3, etc...</p>

[ruslan]

<p>Even antique EOS-1Ds Mk2 of circa 2005-2006 produces noisy at high ISO bul "live" and pleasant at 100% view low ISO pictures. They are pleasant and classy. Not the case with Micro 4/3. 100% crops look like out of a PS camera. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I was reminded a few minutes ago from another thread announcing new Sony lenses that if you compare the weight of a D800 to that of a Sony a7RII body you will find them very similar AND a Sony 24-70 f2.8 lens weighs essentially the same as the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. So in reality at least for the Sony a7R series, the mirrorless camera really are not lighter than a regular DLSR. <br /> Sorry to rain on that parade!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I decided whether or not to drop my Nikon FX system in favor of one based on one of the A7 Series bodies, I found out exactly the same thing. Rather minor weight savings for the mirrorless system, almost entirely due to the camera body itself. A bit less bulky too - but not by much. I was comparing a system intended for travel consisting of 16-35/4, 70-200/4, 35/1.4. Mirrorless shaves one pound of the Nikon system - mostly because of the weight difference between an A7RII and a D810. It's less if one compares a A7II and a D750.</p>

<p>If I were to put together an entirely different system, I might end up with a substantially lighter and less bulky system using mirrorless - it all depends. I put a short list together in another thread, comparing sizes and weights of DSLR and mirrorless lenses - in almost all cases there isn't much of a size and weight difference: <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00dij2">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00dij2</a></p>

<p>A lot of these "mirrorless is smaller and lighter" are skewed - you are naturally going to end up with a smaller and lighter system if you ditch a D4 with 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8 in favor of a A7II with 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and 70-200/4.</p>

<p>I was able to put a small travel bag together containing an A7, a 15/4.5, 21/1.8, 40/1.4, and 90/2 lens - all manual focus M-mount lenses - it all fits into a space that can't hold more than a DSLR and an attached 16-35 zoom. The system is a bit limiting in some regards but entirely suitable for most of the things I shoot during certain types of travels. A DSLR-based system with the same focal length would require a significantly larger bag - which would also be a few pounds heavier.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4 is surprisingly heavy, being all metal. It is about the same size as a Summicron 90/2 , but a little lighter, and 2/3rds the size and weight of a Nikon 17-35/2.8. The Nikon is mostly plastic, but a fine lens nonetheless. I've had mine since 2001, and only one trip to Mr. Goodwrench to replace the focusing motor and cam.</p>

<p>The Sony 70-200/4 weighs 840 grams, only 11 grams more than the 16-35/4. The Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII weighs nearly twice as much at 1540 grams, and is over an inch longer.</p>

<p>A pet peeve is that Nikon settles on a filter size (e.g., 77 mm), whereas Sony has a different size for each lens - 52, 62, 67, 72 and now 82. Good grief!</p>

[howardfuhrman]

<p>Ed,<br>

I do not believe a Sony 70-200/4 is a fair weight comparison to a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII. Generally the faster the lens the heavier it is. If Nikon markets a 70-200/4 of comparable quality to the Sony, that would be a fairer weight comparison.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Howard, that is certainly true, but another way to think about it is whether one can achieve the desired results with an f4 lens. In my mind there are three advantages to the f2.8 lens: more light, shallower depth of field and perhaps nicer bokeh. <br>

The more light issue can be largely offset by the better sensors (particularly in the a7M2 series) which leaves depth of field and bokeh. Most of my travel photography is not heavily depended on those two things so a lighter f4 lens really can do the job, at least for me, and I don't need to carry all that extra weight. <br>

Just a weird way of thinking before the Super Bowl.</p>