Is mirrorless the worst of all worlds? and FF the best?

Started Apr 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,575
Like?
Re: Guess you never heard of medium or large format cameras...
In reply to Mike_PEAT, Apr 26, 2013

Mike_PEAT wrote:

zenpmd wrote:

  1. Nothing can compete with low light with FF.

Guess you never heard of medium or large format cameras...puts the misnamed "full frame" cameras to shame!  Seriously though, not everyone needs an extreme low light camera!

His point holds even better when comparing 135 FF against medium and large format.

  1. Nothing can compete with the Bokeh of FF (now I admit these are more about sensor size than mirrorless technology, but my point is that mirrorless is so expensive it makes sense to compare to FF), and also to keep using FF until mirrorless FF is available.

Again, look at the bokeh of medium and large format!

That is true but MF is still a specialised type of camera, lack good AF, low light and versatile zooms. It is pretty easy to carry a 6D + 24-105 or D600 + 24-85 everywhere you go, it is a different thing carrying a MF. For the context of hobbyist photography, he is completely right.

I am not aware of Large format digital exists, at the least not outside experimental and research projects.

  1. The viewfinders are not 100%

Mirrorless cameras ARE 100% as they use EVFs!

You got him on this one. But 135 FF uses OVF.

  1. With all the options you have to carry a bag still. They are not the Sony RX100 or RX1. I am a Fuji x100s user and this is just about acceptable

I have my OM-D in my every day backpack with my books, papers, laptop...I don't even notice the camera or lenses!

So you do need  bag.

  1. The best thing in its favour is that the zooms, in particular, are small, but there is only one constant apeture option, and its excessively expensive and still only 2.8 so as limited shallow DoF for spontaneous portraiture when travelling for example. The new Tamron 24-70 on FF, on the other hand, is fabulously versatile.

I can use ANY manual lens I want with the right adapter, including fixed aperture zooms.

So it is manual, and it needs an adapter.

  1. The AF sucks for the money the systems cost. 

For the fastest AF, I don't think so.  Locks every time, and my OM-D is certainly faster than my Canon USM lens.

Why are you comparing a body with lenses?

  1. With the price of the 6d and d600 there is no reason not to go full frame now

Lots of reasons, weight, size of the camera, bulk, etc.

That is the point gets a lot of contests, isnt it.

Weight wise yes, FF is heavier but his point is you always need a bag anyway and the extra 400 grams is nothing for a grown man.

cost wise. it is cheaper to buy FF with 1 good zoom than a mirrorless with 3 primes covering the same range and same DOF.

So it seems to me that it makes sense to continue working with bigger cameras for now.

Look, EVERY camera format is a compromise between size/weight/picture quality.

Og course OP understands that. His argument is that those compromises mirrorless made are not quite justified by their benefits.

don't try to tell anyone their choice was bad based on YOUR bias, like you appear to be doing in this post!

Why can he not do that? this is called freedom of expression. Those who read his post have whats called freedom of choice.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
WowNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow