Mirrorless Cameras: False Panacea

[MoreorLess]

Mjankor wrote:

Ahh, you see, on one side of the divide are a tiny handful of mirrorless users busy proclaiming the death of DSLRs. On the other side you have a handful of DSLR users claiming that mirrorless cameras are rubbish.

The vast majority of users are in the middle, happily using whatever camera they like to shoot what they like.

To be honiest I think we see alot more of the former on this board, mirrorless users who simpley will no accept any drawback to their system as the guy questioning midwest here is.

There are clearly advanatges to mirrorless when it comes to size but to many people the size saving offered simpley isnt an issue.

 

[Martin.au]

MoreorLess wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Ahh, you see, on one side of the divide are a tiny handful of mirrorless users busy proclaiming the death of DSLRs. On the other side you have a handful of DSLR users claiming that mirrorless cameras are rubbish.

The vast majority of users are in the middle, happily using whatever camera they like to shoot what they like.

To be honiest I think we see alot more of the former on this board, mirrorless users who simpley will no accept any drawback to their system as the guy questioning midwest here is.

There are clearly advanatges to mirrorless when it comes to size but to many people the size saving offered simpley isnt an issue.

There's a good reason for his questioning though. All too often we hear "Mirrorless can't do xxxxxx", when there's a heap of people using mirrorless happily doing xxxxxx.

Now, if people were more precise in their language, and stated, that, for example "phase detect DSLRs generally track action better than mirrorless", then there wouldn't be many complaints.

You can't blame people for arguing if you make the incorrect claim in the first place.

 

[MoreorLess]

Mjankor wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Ahh, you see, on one side of the divide are a tiny handful of mirrorless users busy proclaiming the death of DSLRs. On the other side you have a handful of DSLR users claiming that mirrorless cameras are rubbish.

The vast majority of users are in the middle, happily using whatever camera they like to shoot what they like.

To be honiest I think we see alot more of the former on this board, mirrorless users who simpley will no accept any drawback to their system as the guy questioning midwest here is.

There are clearly advanatges to mirrorless when it comes to size but to many people the size saving offered simpley isnt an issue.

There's a good reason for his questioning though. All too often we hear "Mirrorless can't do xxxxxx", when there's a heap of people using mirrorless happily doing xxxxxx.

Now, if people were more precise in their language, and stated, that, for example "phase detect DSLRs generally track action better than mirrorless", then there wouldn't be many complaints.

You can't blame people for arguing if you make the incorrect claim in the first place.

I didnt see any of that in Midwests post, he merely claimed that he interacted with many pro's and that very few used mirrorless.

I'm not sure what Einstien was hoping to proove by bringing up his gallery, it looks like the gallery of a rodeo event photographer which is just about as good an example of the merits of AF tracking as I can think of, lots of unpredictable movement in often low light and the important moments that need to be captured also unpredictable.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

Lenni Vilen wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Lenni Vilen wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Lenni Vilen wrote:

Mirrorless cameras offer several advantages over mirrorfull cameras:

• Higher framerates much easier and cheaper to achieve

• Higher quality wide angle lenses

What mirrorless cameras are faster frame rate than 11? I know of the SLT Sony's that are faster but are there mirrorless cameras other than those that I'm unaware of?

What wide angle lenses rival the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor? I don't know of any...

Nikon-1 series shoots 60 frames per second. Try to flap mirror at that rate. And that is only today. In the future the difference will be larger as mechanical parts don't get much faster while electronic ones do.

Regarding lenses - you oviously ignored my earlier reply to you: plenty of Laica's and other M-mount lenses. They not only rival that Nikkor but are far superior to it.

Sorry, I should have said, "What mirrorless cameras are faster frame rate than 11 when shooting RAW?'

Next, I didn't ask about non-native primes. I want to know what native zoom is available in a mirrorless mount without an adapter that's equal or superior to the 14-24? Name one please.

Well, you didn't ask any of these questions, did you? How will you modify the questions the next time if I answer these two? And Leica M does not need an adapter to use Leica M lenses and Leica M certainly is mirrorless - and for zoom they have Leica Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 f/4. Don't know any current mirrorless which go more than 10 fps with raw though. But tomorrow's will go much more than that while tomorrows mirrorfull will still be limited to pretty much what today offers.

Also, I stated - as you kindly quoted - that mirrorless cameras can achieve higher framerates much easier and much more cheaply - what sub-1200 euro mirrorfull camera goes 60fps on JPG or 10 fps in raw? (Ok, I don't know how much Sony's top SLT is and it does 12 fps, but it's kind of special case due to the non-moving mirror.)

Since you like the question game, let me ask you two two questions to see if you can undermine my original statement:

1. Can you name SLR wide angle lenses equal or superior to Leica's top of the line wide angles?
2. Can you name an SLR which provides mirrorless framerates at similar price range?

What are the technical limitations to performance for framerates and lens designs for mirrorless or mirrorfull cameras? Maybe I should answer this myself:

• Mirrorfull framerates are near maximum (for mirrored viewfinder operation) - it is very expensive to make them faster and impossible to make them much faster because of the mechanical parts
  
• Mirrorless framerates will go up lots, especially once global shutter and stacked design becomes available for large sensors

For lenses:

• Mirrorfull wide angles (upto normals, depending on aperures) need to be inverse teleconverter design - more complex, more expensive, mose quality control issues due to complexity, less quality for the price
• Mirrless wide angles - no such limitations - if a lens can be made to mirrorfull, it can be cloned to mirrorless and additionally a better back/buck ratio option in smaller package is available

Oh, btw, I just noticed that you think that Sony SLT cameras are mirrorless - they are certainly not. They do certainly have a mirror (no secondary mirror though AFAIK), thus should be classified as mirrorfull cameras and certainly have none of the inherit lens advantages of mirrorless.

So, to summarize, there are no mirrorless cameras that can match current traditional dSLR's in frame rate and there are no existing wide angle zooms that can match what is available for traditional dSLR's, such as the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor. So your initial claim was false.

All of a sudden you are making price a concern, while in the same breath arguing that we should consider the Leica lenses and cameras you mention as competitors. You can't have it both ways. Either the Leica is a valid comparison and price doesn't matter or price does matter and you have to eliminate the Leica stuff, leaving virtually nothing that's anywhere close to equal to dSLR gear.

To answer your specific questions, yes I can.

A1: Carl Zeiss makes several wide angles equal to the Leica's mentioned.

A2: The D4 and 1DX both provide superior RAW capture frame rate at prices that are comparable to the Leica setup you've been comparing. (I'm sure there are others, too, but I think two is enough to answer your question.)

Last, I know EXACTLY what Sony SLT cameras are. I owned several for quite a while and know exactly how they work.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Kuivaamo wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

At this point, the only reason I see sticking with a DSLR is PDAF.

I can see other reasons as well. For example the availability of (ultra)wide-angle tilt-shift lenses. I use my DSLRs most of the time, even though I use live view a lot and I do have a mirrorless system as well. Mirrorless simply does not currently provide the same results that are achievable with a competent DSLR system, or at least achieving those results is so much easier with a DSLR that the size/weight difference is a smaller consideration for me.

1- Why can't a mirror-less camera be used?

2- What mirror-less camera do you have that can't do it?

But then, I do work out!

I didn't consider the correlation between working out and gear size, the former eliminating the need for less bulk.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Midwest wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:
My idea of mirror-less technology is based on more than perceptions. I own a DSLT that provides you with AF speed that comparable DSLRs cannot match, and a NEX that can substitute for a DSLT/DSLR while bringing in its own strengths as well.

I'm glad you've found what works well for you. Many of us who have DSLR's are very happy with them and not waiting for something to replace them. No EVF is ever going to beat a view of reality or provide a real-time view that doesn't also draw on the battery.

No view finder is ever going to beat the real view through your eyes. At least when I am looking through an optical view finder, I can tell the difference between the tinted tunnel vision it provides compared to when I look around without the aid of a view finder. To me, LCD or EVF or OVF is merely compositional tool, not to be confused with "real view".

 

[Kuivaamo]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Kuivaamo wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

At this point, the only reason I see sticking with a DSLR is PDAF.

I can see other reasons as well. For example the availability of (ultra)wide-angle tilt-shift lenses. I use my DSLRs most of the time, even though I use live view a lot and I do have a mirrorless system as well. Mirrorless simply does not currently provide the same results that are achievable with a competent DSLR system, or at least achieving those results is so much easier with a DSLR that the size/weight difference is a smaller consideration for me.

1- Why can't a mirror-less camera be used?

There are no mirrorless alternatives to a FF DSLR and a 17mm TS-E, for example. This is a favourite combo for some, and a perfectly valid reason for sticking with a DSLR. Even though it has nothing to do it PDAF.

2- What mirror-less camera do you have that can't do it?

It doesn't really matter, since there exists no such mirrorless camera that could do it. But I have a Panny G1. And used to have an Oly E-P1.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Biggs23 wrote:

Lenni Vilen wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Lenni Vilen wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Lenni Vilen wrote:

Mirrorless cameras offer several advantages over mirrorfull cameras:

• Higher framerates much easier and cheaper to achieve

• Higher quality wide angle lenses

What mirrorless cameras are faster frame rate than 11? I know of the SLT Sony's that are faster but are there mirrorless cameras other than those that I'm unaware of?

What wide angle lenses rival the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor? I don't know of any...

Nikon-1 series shoots 60 frames per second. Try to flap mirror at that rate. And that is only today. In the future the difference will be larger as mechanical parts don't get much faster while electronic ones do.

Regarding lenses - you oviously ignored my earlier reply to you: plenty of Laica's and other M-mount lenses. They not only rival that Nikkor but are far superior to it.

Sorry, I should have said, "What mirrorless cameras are faster frame rate than 11 when shooting RAW?'

Next, I didn't ask about non-native primes. I want to know what native zoom is available in a mirrorless mount without an adapter that's equal or superior to the 14-24? Name one please.

Well, you didn't ask any of these questions, did you? How will you modify the questions the next time if I answer these two? And Leica M does not need an adapter to use Leica M lenses and Leica M certainly is mirrorless - and for zoom they have Leica Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 f/4. Don't know any current mirrorless which go more than 10 fps with raw though. But tomorrow's will go much more than that while tomorrows mirrorfull will still be limited to pretty much what today offers.

Also, I stated - as you kindly quoted - that mirrorless cameras can achieve higher framerates much easier and much more cheaply - what sub-1200 euro mirrorfull camera goes 60fps on JPG or 10 fps in raw? (Ok, I don't know how much Sony's top SLT is and it does 12 fps, but it's kind of special case due to the non-moving mirror.)

Since you like the question game, let me ask you two two questions to see if you can undermine my original statement:

1. Can you name SLR wide angle lenses equal or superior to Leica's top of the line wide angles?
2. Can you name an SLR which provides mirrorless framerates at similar price range?

What are the technical limitations to performance for framerates and lens designs for mirrorless or mirrorfull cameras? Maybe I should answer this myself:

• Mirrorfull framerates are near maximum (for mirrored viewfinder operation) - it is very expensive to make them faster and impossible to make them much faster because of the mechanical parts
  
• Mirrorless framerates will go up lots, especially once global shutter and stacked design becomes available for large sensors

For lenses:

• Mirrorfull wide angles (upto normals, depending on aperures) need to be inverse teleconverter design - more complex, more expensive, mose quality control issues due to complexity, less quality for the price
• Mirrless wide angles - no such limitations - if a lens can be made to mirrorfull, it can be cloned to mirrorless and additionally a better back/buck ratio option in smaller package is available

Oh, btw, I just noticed that you think that Sony SLT cameras are mirrorless - they are certainly not. They do certainly have a mirror (no secondary mirror though AFAIK), thus should be classified as mirrorfull cameras and certainly have none of the inherit lens advantages of mirrorless.

So, to summarize, there are no mirrorless cameras that can match current traditional dSLR's in frame rate and there are no existing wide angle zooms that can match what is available for traditional dSLR's, such as the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor. So your initial claim was false.

All of a sudden you are making price a concern, while in the same breath arguing that we should consider the Leica lenses and cameras you mention as competitors. You can't have it both ways. Either the Leica is a valid comparison and price doesn't matter or price does matter and you have to eliminate the Leica stuff, leaving virtually nothing that's anywhere close to equal to dSLR gear.

To answer your specific questions, yes I can.

A1: Carl Zeiss makes several wide angles equal to the Leica's mentioned.

A2: The D4 and 1DX both provide superior RAW capture frame rate at prices that are comparable to the Leica setup you've been comparing. (I'm sure there are others, too, but I think two is enough to answer your question.)

Last, I know EXACTLY what Sony SLT cameras are. I owned several for quite a while and know exactly how they work.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Kuivaamo wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Kuivaamo wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

At this point, the only reason I see sticking with a DSLR is PDAF.

I can see other reasons as well. For example the availability of (ultra)wide-angle tilt-shift lenses. I use my DSLRs most of the time, even though I use live view a lot and I do have a mirrorless system as well. Mirrorless simply does not currently provide the same results that are achievable with a competent DSLR system, or at least achieving those results is so much easier with a DSLR that the size/weight difference is a smaller consideration for me.

1- Why can't a mirror-less camera be used?

There are no mirrorless alternatives to a FF DSLR and a 17mm TS-E, for example. This is a favourite combo for some, and a perfectly valid reason for sticking with a DSLR. Even though it has nothing to do it PDAF.

Which makes your argument: strawman. Is it too much to discuss things we actually can?

2- What mirror-less camera do you have that can't do it?

It doesn't really matter, since there exists no such mirrorless camera that could do it. But I have a Panny G1. And used to have an Oly E-P1.

It may be a matter of simply being aware (or not). At this point, I'm surprised that people are actually making a point that mirror-less cameras are picky about adapters and lenses that can be used on them.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

MoreorLess wrote:
I'm not sure what Einstien was hoping to proove by bringing up his gallery, it looks like the gallery of a rodeo event photographer which is just about as good an example of the merits of AF tracking as I can think of, lots of unpredictable movement in often low light and the important moments that need to be captured also unpredictable.

You should have asked Einstein. Did you? What did he tell you?

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

MoreorLess wrote:

Where did I say that taking pics of moving subjects was impossible with a mirrorless? I said "better AF tracking" which is a clear well tested fact.

To be fair to you, the tracking in my sample, although it is out of the most basic of NEX cameras (NEX-3), was with a mirror attached to it. To be more specific, using SLT technology that allows for virtually uninterrupted continuous AF system (no mirror movement getting in the way). But, the illustration was to counter the argument made in the post I responded to. And to also illustrate the flexibility a mirror-less system can offer if one chooses to take advantage.

To be honiest I'm not seeing what your pictures "proove" none of them strike me as very dynamtic unlike Midwests gallery which clearly captures many dynamtic moments that likely benefited from being able to keep the subject constantly in focus.

Well, I wouldn't claim these images to be all that either, because they was out of my first test runs with NEX-3. With the shallow DoF (you didn't notice that, did you?), I was also attempting to fine tune the combination for AF micro adjust.


But, I don't see anything "pro" about those rodeo shots either (which you believe them as such to be). I've taken those in a lot worse conditions. Try indoor rodeo with extremely limited lighting for a change... something along these lines (also my maiden, and unplanned, attempt with it):

And that is one of nearly a dozen shot taken in sequence, albeit thru an SLT, at 10 FPS/AF-C.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

So, to summarize, there are no mirrorless cameras that can match current traditional dSLR's in frame rate and there are no existing wide angle zooms that can match what is available for traditional dSLR's, such as the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor. So your initial claim was false.

All of a sudden you are making price a concern, while in the same breath arguing that we should consider the Leica lenses and cameras you mention as competitors. You can't have it both ways. Either the Leica is a valid comparison and price doesn't matter or price does matter and you have to eliminate the Leica stuff, leaving virtually nothing that's anywhere close to equal to dSLR gear.

To answer your specific questions, yes I can.

A1: Carl Zeiss makes several wide angles equal to the Leica's mentioned.

A2: The D4 and 1DX both provide superior RAW capture frame rate at prices that are comparable to the Leica setup you've been comparing. (I'm sure there are others, too, but I think two is enough to answer your question.)

Last, I know EXACTLY what Sony SLT cameras are. I owned several for quite a while and know exactly how they work.

 

[theswede #100093]

123Mike wrote:

I'm perfectly aware of focus peaking, and no, you can not do that cleanly and as good as the AF system can. You'll be seeking back and forth, and often your focus ends up being off still. Been there done that. It shows up in the end result.

Did you use a manual focus lense when you tried it? There is a huge difference between using an AF lense for MF and using a dedicated MF lense for MF.

I can recommend trying with an M42 adapter and a nice F1.4 or F1.8 50mm lense for starters. Those can be found cheap, and are excellent for learning MF on. I can guarantee you will be surprised.

Jesper

 

[MoreorLess]

So far we've only seen test products from Samsung hinted at but for me if mirrorless is really going to replace DSLR's in the short term(next 5 years or so) then MF seems to have the most potential for me.

For one thing your up agenst much less advanced AF competision and indeed users(studio, landscape, fashion, macro etc) generally who don't tend to need it as much.

For another I think the size savings really start to become more obvious, when your dealing with FF I'm guessing most users of D600/6D, D800/5D or D4/1DX sizec cameras wouldnt want a body any smaller to get the controls and balance/grip that suit them. When you go up to MF though it seems to me that camera start to grow beyond the needs of the user, mirror boxes and veiwfinders start to outsize grips and controls plus theres generally less use of really long/fast tele's so comparatively less lens to balance.

You look at MF/LF in the film years and its noteble that compaired to 35mm where the market was almost totally dominated by DSLR's by the 80's you still have a sizeble market for rangefinders, due I'd guess to the reasons listed above.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Kuivaamo wrote: no mirrorless alternatives to a FF DSLR and a 17mm TS-E, for example. This is a favourite combo for some, and a perfectly valid reason for sticking with a DSLR. Even though it has nothing to do it PDAF.

Which makes your argument: strawman. Is it too much to discuss things we actually can?

Do you know what a strawman argument is? I don't think it mean what you think it means. If two people are talking about which car is better for them and someone says 'A Ferrari isn't a good solution for me because it doesn't do well in the snow' that is NOT a strawman argument. Neither is saying that mirror isn't a good solution because it can't mount a 17mm TS-E.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Midwest wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Midwest wrote:
Utter nonsense. I am a pro. I know most the pros in my area. I meet other pros often at events. I have had the good fortune to meet 100s of people that make their living in photography. this is not happening at all. Almost all pros shoot canon and nikon for professional work. There are very few exceptions.

That I'm no pro, would make it even more fun to discuss this subject with someone who claims to be one.
Just to be certain there is no misunderstanding here, I am not a pro photographer nor did I ever claim to be one.
I simply took your words (in bold above).

I posted something from someone who says he is one. Until I see pro photographers abandoning DSLR's en masse I have no reason to doubt what he said.

I couldn't care less really. I try to speak for me self.

So, why do you feel that the images you have posted in your gallery, cannot be taken with mirror-less cameras?

Often I look at posters' galleries when I see them claiming they need better AF, faster burst shooting, more this, better that, improved something else - and then their gallery is mostly flowers and squirrels and ducks that could be shot with pretty much any camera, certainly with a mirrorless one.

Show me one image you took, that you believe cannot be taken with a Sony NEX.

I enjoy shooting junior rodeo action, much of which is moving across my field of view from not all that far away, so the focus distance and image composition change very quickly. Neither the autofocus nor EVF / LCD of a mirrorless camera could keep up with it. It's all I can do to keep up while using a DSLR under those circumstances.

You shoot often, I shot only once. And I wasn't even prepared for it (not planned). And I didn't have the luxury of bright day light either, or the comfort of having learned my camera well at the time. The luxury I have, is that I can actually demonstrate use of EVF/LCD in a high burst (up to 10 fps) sequence of 12-14 images that I use often, with pleasure.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Kuivaamo wrote: no mirrorless alternatives to a FF DSLR and a 17mm TS-E, for example. This is a favourite combo for some, and a perfectly valid reason for sticking with a DSLR. Even though it has nothing to do it PDAF.

Which makes your argument: strawman. Is it too much to discuss things we actually can?

Do you know what a strawman argument is? I don't think it mean what you think it means. If two people are talking about which car is better for them and someone says 'A Ferrari isn't a good solution for me because it doesn't do well in the snow' that is NOT a strawman argument. Neither is saying that mirror isn't a good solution because it can't mount a 17mm TS-E.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

So, to summarize, there are no mirrorless cameras that can match current traditional dSLR's in frame rate and there are no existing wide angle zooms that can match what is available for traditional dSLR's, such as the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor. So your initial claim was false.

All of a sudden you are making price a concern, while in the same breath arguing that we should consider the Leica lenses and cameras you mention as competitors. You can't have it both ways. Either the Leica is a valid comparison and price doesn't matter or price does matter and you have to eliminate the Leica stuff, leaving virtually nothing that's anywhere close to equal to dSLR gear.

To answer your specific questions, yes I can.

A1: Carl Zeiss makes several wide angles equal to the Leica's mentioned.

A2: The D4 and 1DX both provide superior RAW capture frame rate at prices that are comparable to the Leica setup you've been comparing. (I'm sure there are others, too, but I think two is enough to answer your question.)

Last, I know EXACTLY what Sony SLT cameras are. I owned several for quite a while and know exactly how they work.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Kuivaamo wrote: no mirrorless alternatives to a FF DSLR and a 17mm TS-E, for example. This is a favourite combo for some, and a perfectly valid reason for sticking with a DSLR. Even though it has nothing to do it PDAF.

Which makes your argument: strawman. Is it too much to discuss things we actually can?

Do you know what a strawman argument is? I don't think it mean what you think it means. If two people are talking about which car is better for them and someone says 'A Ferrari isn't a good solution for me because it doesn't do well in the snow' that is NOT a strawman argument. Neither is saying that mirror isn't a good solution because it can't mount a 17mm TS-E.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

These are not strawman arguments. The poster I was responding to was making claims that didn't match reality and I was simply pointing that out.

You failed at the attempt.

Perhaps for you I did. For those reading thoroughly I can say that I succeeded.

I have NO problem with people using mirrorless cameras if they fit their needs. I've even considered buying one to carry around when I don't want to bring a larger camera. However, for the vast majority of my shooting a mirrorless isn't practical. To each their own is fine, I just wanted to clarify that there ARE limitations on mirrorless cameras just as there are for dSLR's. The user needs to choose which limitations are less important for them.

Nobody should have a problem with what others choose. But when we choose to engage in a discussion, we should be open to discussing pros and cons, with equal fervor. Accepting that it is possible to have missed aspects of a camera where it is indeed better or worse.

I agree. So why are you not open to discussing the cons of mirrorless cameras?