Your experience with mirrorless cameras - are you convinced or not?

[GodSpeaks]

I am convinced that there are a good many people who choose the OVF and the DSLR not because they want to be advantaged in some way, but because they want to be disadvantaged.

I know someone who felt quite special printing FoCal targets and spending days calibrating each of his lenses. It's like those consoles on Star Trek, flashing and beeping in importance. Fancied himself a Sulu or ensign Chekov, me thinks.

The more dials he had to turn, knobs to twist, or hurdles to climb, the better. Why take the elevator when you can make pilgrimage to top using stairs?

Now that has to be one of the most stupid, and insulting, comments I have read in a very long time. Seriously.

 

[Phil A Martin]

I am convinced that there are a good many people who choose the OVF and the DSLR not because they want to be advantaged in some way, but because they want to be disadvantaged.

I know someone who felt quite special printing FoCal targets and spending days calibrating each of his lenses. It's like those consoles on Star Trek, flashing and beeping in importance. Fancied himself a Sulu or ensign Chekov, me thinks.

The more dials he had to turn, knobs to twist, or hurdles to climb, the better. Why take the elevator when you can make pilgrimage to top using stairs?

Now that has to be one of the most stupid, and insulting, comments I have read in a very long time. Seriously.

Agreed

--
The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler

 

[sybersitizen]

I am convinced that there are a good many people who choose the OVF and the DSLR not because they want to be advantaged in some way, but because they want to be disadvantaged.

I know someone who felt quite special printing FoCal targets and spending days calibrating each of his lenses. It's like those consoles on Star Trek, flashing and beeping in importance. Fancied himself a Sulu or ensign Chekov, me thinks.

The more dials he had to turn, knobs to twist, or hurdles to climb, the better. Why take the elevator when you can make pilgrimage to top using stairs?

Now that has to be one of the most stupid, and insulting, comments I have read in a very long time. Seriously.

Are you sure? It's clearly a contender, but maybe you missed this one:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4552497?page=2#forum-post-64826099

 

[ashleymorrison]

An example of how I am able to tell you something without using any words - which is basically what photography is all about.

 

[Mega Doo Doo]

I am convinced that there are a good many people who choose the OVF and the DSLR not because they want to be advantaged in some way, but because they want to be disadvantaged.

I know someone who felt quite special printing FoCal targets and spending days calibrating each of his lenses. It's like those consoles on Star Trek, flashing and beeping in importance. Fancied himself a Sulu or ensign Chekov, me thinks.

The more dials he had to turn, knobs to twist, or hurdles to climb, the better. Why take the elevator when you can make pilgrimage to top using stairs?

Now that has to be one of the most stupid, and insulting, comments I have read in a very long time. Seriously.

God, no offense intended. It is a "stop and smell the roses" type of thing. Journey more important than destination, like driving antique, vintage Model T to work, or spending days in forge making your own tool vs. buying a Craftsman.

You get what I'm saying?

 

[Guy Parsons]

You will have a hard time convincing me as my a7r2 shooting my daughters netball games shows practically no rolling shutter artefacts even on the ball traveling through the air at speed. the a1 would be on another planet.

Don

A hand thrown large ball is hardly a test, maybe a very strongly kicked soccer ball or an F1 car going past at full speed would reveal the inadequacies of the usual rolling shutter.

Plane propellers of course are where the rolling shutter faults really stand out.

An interjection.... the general indication of the effect of a cameras rolling shutter is directly related to The Flash synchronisation speed and by my shooting I have noticed this. For example buy ancient Canon FTB had a flash sync speed of 1/60 of a second an could produce a rolling shutter effect rather easily particularly with shots that were significantly panned. In a similar way ancient thread mount Leicas had a flash sync speed of 1/25 of a second or thereabouts .When the flash sync speed increased to 1/300 sec the effect of the Rolling shutter significantly diminished in a visual context however is technically always present

Of course this is qualified by cameras with true Global shutters such as the Nikon D1 series in which the only function of the shutter was to get out of the way so the camera could directly control the Global shutter

The D1 with 2.74MP CCD sensor could of course act fast enough to look like a global shutter. The rot set in with CMOS sensors and now only many years later they are approaching speeds that make them useful as fully electronic shutters.

 

[tony field]

You will have a hard time convincing me as my a7r2 shooting my daughters netball games shows practically no rolling shutter artefacts even on the ball traveling through the air at speed. the a1 would be on another planet.

Don

A hand thrown large ball is hardly a test, maybe a very strongly kicked soccer ball or an F1 car going past at full speed would reveal the inadequacies of the usual rolling shutter.

Plane propellers of course are where the rolling shutter faults really stand out.

An interjection.... the general indication of the effect of a cameras rolling shutter is directly related to The Flash synchronisation speed and by my shooting I have noticed this. For example buy ancient Canon FTB had a flash sync speed of 1/60 of a second an could produce a rolling shutter effect rather easily particularly with shots that were significantly panned. In a similar way ancient thread mount Leicas had a flash sync speed of 1/25 of a second or thereabouts .When the flash sync speed increased to 1/300 sec the effect of the Rolling shutter significantly diminished in a visual context however is technically always present

Of course this is qualified by cameras with true Global shutters such as the Nikon D1 series in which the only function of the shutter was to get out of the way so the camera could directly control the Global shutter

The D1 with 2.74MP CCD sensor could of course act fast enough to look like a global shutter. The rot set in with CMOS sensors and now only many years later they are approaching speeds that make them useful as fully electronic shutters.

I don't understand the term " looks like a global shutter"

I could actually shoot at 1/16000 sec and could actually follow the light intensity curve of a flash with uniform image density as opposed to be electronic shutter concept which would be non-uniform

 

[Guy Parsons]

You will have a hard time convincing me as my a7r2 shooting my daughters netball games shows practically no rolling shutter artefacts even on the ball traveling through the air at speed. the a1 would be on another planet.

Don

A hand thrown large ball is hardly a test, maybe a very strongly kicked soccer ball or an F1 car going past at full speed would reveal the inadequacies of the usual rolling shutter.

Plane propellers of course are where the rolling shutter faults really stand out.

An interjection.... the general indication of the effect of a cameras rolling shutter is directly related to The Flash synchronisation speed and by my shooting I have noticed this. For example buy ancient Canon FTB had a flash sync speed of 1/60 of a second an could produce a rolling shutter effect rather easily particularly with shots that were significantly panned. In a similar way ancient thread mount Leicas had a flash sync speed of 1/25 of a second or thereabouts .When the flash sync speed increased to 1/300 sec the effect of the Rolling shutter significantly diminished in a visual context however is technically always present

Of course this is qualified by cameras with true Global shutters such as the Nikon D1 series in which the only function of the shutter was to get out of the way so the camera could directly control the Global shutter

The D1 with 2.74MP CCD sensor could of course act fast enough to look like a global shutter. The rot set in with CMOS sensors and now only many years later they are approaching speeds that make them useful as fully electronic shutters.

I don't understand the term " looks like a global shutter"

I could actually shoot at 1/16000 sec and could actually follow the light intensity curve of a flash with uniform image density as opposed to be electronic shutter concept which would be non-uniform

From my reading then the CCD may have been a frame transfer type that allows the pixel contents to be dumped to an identical hidden set, the the hidden set unloads at leisure while the active pixels are gathering the next frame.

 

[tony field]

You will have a hard time convincing me as my a7r2 shooting my daughters netball games shows practically no rolling shutter artefacts even on the ball traveling through the air at speed. the a1 would be on another planet.

Don

A hand thrown large ball is hardly a test, maybe a very strongly kicked soccer ball or an F1 car going past at full speed would reveal the inadequacies of the usual rolling shutter.

Plane propellers of course are where the rolling shutter faults really stand out.

An interjection.... the general indication of the effect of a cameras rolling shutter is directly related to The Flash synchronisation speed and by my shooting I have noticed this. For example buy ancient Canon FTB had a flash sync speed of 1/60 of a second an could produce a rolling shutter effect rather easily particularly with shots that were significantly panned. In a similar way ancient thread mount Leicas had a flash sync speed of 1/25 of a second or thereabouts .When the flash sync speed increased to 1/300 sec the effect of the Rolling shutter significantly diminished in a visual context however is technically always present

Of course this is qualified by cameras with true Global shutters such as the Nikon D1 series in which the only function of the shutter was to get out of the way so the camera could directly control the Global shutter

The D1 with 2.74MP CCD sensor could of course act fast enough to look like a global shutter. The rot set in with CMOS sensors and now only many years later they are approaching speeds that make them useful as fully electronic shutters.

I don't understand the term " looks like a global shutter"

I could actually shoot at 1/16000 sec and could actually follow the light intensity curve of a flash with uniform image density as opposed to be electronic shutter concept which would be non-uniform

From my reading then the CCD may have been a frame transfer type that allows the pixel contents to be dumped to an identical hidden set, the the hidden set unloads at leisure while the active pixels are gathering the next frame.

That is my understanding as well

 

[Phil A Martin]

I am convinced that there are a good many people who choose the OVF and the DSLR not because they want to be advantaged in some way, but because they want to be disadvantaged.

I know someone who felt quite special printing FoCal targets and spending days calibrating each of his lenses. It's like those consoles on Star Trek, flashing and beeping in importance. Fancied himself a Sulu or ensign Chekov, me thinks.

The more dials he had to turn, knobs to twist, or hurdles to climb, the better. Why take the elevator when you can make pilgrimage to top using stairs?

Now that has to be one of the most stupid, and insulting, comments I have read in a very long time. Seriously.

God, no offense intended. It is a "stop and smell the roses" type of thing. Journey more important than destination, like driving antique, vintage Model T to work, or spending days in forge making your own tool vs. buying a Craftsman.

You get what I'm saying?

Doubling down on the insults is not the same as disproving them. A model t ford equivalent would be an old Zeiss Ikon folder, not a modern DSLR. You are talking nonsense.

--
He bumbled to the top,
and then tumbled to the bottom,
like a rock full of crock.
Can I say that, is it verboten?

 

[Tim Reidy Productions]

I would not want to be accused of insulting God, and I not sure I would be concerned of a user name like mega has to say.

both systems have their uses, I was able to get some usable shots with both types of systems this past week.

 

[dmartin92]

I have been using Canon stuff for over 20 years, but I look at the Nikon D780, DSLR, and the images it takes, and I am almost tempted to get my first Nikon DSLR, and a good 50mm lens to go with the D780.

The Nikon D780, it almost seems that Nikon would have to stop making DSLRs, because with the D780 they have arrived at perfection, at a good price too.

But then I look at the Canon 5D mk4, and that seems like it would a small step up from my 6D. Makes more sense, as I already own Canon lenses.

They are just such remarkable cameras, and they take such great pictures, I can only adore them.

Is mirrorless better ? Well, yeah, perhaps, I guess so.

The thing that scares me is the idea that one day there will be some sensor advancement and I will have to get a mirrorless camera to have that sensor.

But sensors haven't improved much during the last 15 years, so even some old DSLR from 2018 isn't far behind the new mirrorless offerings.

Happily mirrorless doesn't seem that bad, the EVF is okay, I guess, kind of, so if I ever have to go to it, no big problem.

But I look at computer screens all day long. It's nice to be outside, taking photos, and seeing real light. Not another computer screen.

If only all of life's issues were as minor as this one, that would be nice.

 

[Donald B]

I switched to mirrorless, both MFT and FF, for the lighter weight, smaller size.

My R plus the RF 50L is larger (well, longer) and heavier than my now sold 5D4 plus the EF 50L!

Compact Camera Meter (camerasize.com)

Get a real mirrorless

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.354,624.846,ha,t

I went for a real lens.

--
Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244

past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2

 

[9VIII]

I have been using Canon stuff for over 20 years, but I look at the Nikon D780, DSLR, and the images it takes, and I am almost tempted to get my first Nikon DSLR, and a good 50mm lens to go with the D780.

The Nikon D780, it almost seems that Nikon would have to stop making DSLRs, because with the D780 they have arrived at perfection, at a good price too.

But then I look at the Canon 5D mk4, and that seems like it would a small step up from my 6D. Makes more sense, as I already own Canon lenses.

They are just such remarkable cameras, and they take such great pictures, I can only adore them.

Is mirrorless better ? Well, yeah, perhaps, I guess so.

The thing that scares me is the idea that one day there will be some sensor advancement and I will have to get a mirrorless camera to have that sensor.

But sensors haven't improved much during the last 15 years, so even some old DSLR from 2018 isn't far behind the new mirrorless offerings.

Happily mirrorless doesn't seem that bad, the EVF is okay, I guess, kind of, so if I ever have to go to it, no big problem.

But I look at computer screens all day long. It's nice to be outside, taking photos, and seeing real light. Not another computer screen.

If only all of life's issues were as minor as this one, that would be nice.

You might be one of the few people who would never be tempted by Mirrorless.

Over the next 10 years ALL of the good wide angle lenses will be for Short Flange systems, by necessity of design.

Conversely, as long as you're not shooting with lenses below 35mm in focal length then the SLR should have no disadvantages.

 

[Phil A Martin]

I have been using Canon stuff for over 20 years, but I look at the Nikon D780, DSLR, and the images it takes, and I am almost tempted to get my first Nikon DSLR, and a good 50mm lens to go with the D780.

The Nikon D780, it almost seems that Nikon would have to stop making DSLRs, because with the D780 they have arrived at perfection, at a good price too.

But then I look at the Canon 5D mk4, and that seems like it would a small step up from my 6D. Makes more sense, as I already own Canon lenses.

They are just such remarkable cameras, and they take such great pictures, I can only adore them.

Is mirrorless better ? Well, yeah, perhaps, I guess so.

The thing that scares me is the idea that one day there will be some sensor advancement and I will have to get a mirrorless camera to have that sensor.

But sensors haven't improved much during the last 15 years, so even some old DSLR from 2018 isn't far behind the new mirrorless offerings.

Happily mirrorless doesn't seem that bad, the EVF is okay, I guess, kind of, so if I ever have to go to it, no big problem.

But I look at computer screens all day long. It's nice to be outside, taking photos, and seeing real light. Not another computer screen.

If only all of life's issues were as minor as this one, that would be nice.

You might be one of the few people who would never be tempted by Mirrorless.

Over the next 10 years ALL of the good wide angle lenses will be for Short Flange systems, by necessity of design.

Conversely, as long as you're not shooting with lenses below 35mm in focal length then the SLR should have no disadvantages.

Pentax will shortly be releasing a weather resistant 21mm lens for the full frame K1 DSLR.

 

[SonyOB]

Today's experience showed me an additional thing: If you carry a camera, it does not make any sense to share its pictures to FaceBook through Edge and iPad...just grab your smartphone and be done with it. Ease of use or picture quality...you must get either one right at least.

A Sony or a Samsung.

--
Words are wind.

 

[EOS GUY]

I voted mirrorless.

main reasons

1. I shoot APSC. MY X-T2 has a 100% and 0.77 mag EVF. No other APSC camera (not even all FF cameras) can give me that. It's one of the main reasons I bought it.

2. Silent shutter. SO nice to not be clack clack clacking in galleries and concerts etc

3. Just easier to get exposure right. I can do it with a dslr, it's just easier and quicker with m/less.

I could go back to a Canon SL2 and 24mm F2,8 STM instead of my X-T2 and 23mm F2 if I had to though. Just lose those 3 conveniences listed above.

 

[Phil A Martin]

I voted mirrorless.

main reasons

1. I shoot APSC. MY X-T2 has a 100% and 0.77 mag EVF. No other APSC camera (not even all FF cameras) can give me that. It's one of the main reasons I bought it.

2. Silent shutter. SO nice to not be clack clack clacking in galleries and concerts etc

3. Just easier to get exposure right. I can do it with a dslr, it's just easier and quicker with m/less.

I could go back to a Canon SL2 and 24mm F2,8 STM instead of my X-T2 and 23mm F2 if I had to though. Just lose those 3 conveniences listed above.

--
My Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/photonicstreetdreams/

I note your Instagram account is private.

The earth laughs in flowers.
-Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Before you say (or post in our context) = THINK.
Is what you're going to say - True. Helpful. Important (or Inspiring.) Necessary. Kind.
I have G.A.S, - gear avoidance syndrome.

 

[EOS GUY]

I voted mirrorless.

main reasons

1. I shoot APSC. MY X-T2 has a 100% and 0.77 mag EVF. No other APSC camera (not even all FF cameras) can give me that. It's one of the main reasons I bought it.

2. Silent shutter. SO nice to not be clack clack clacking in galleries and concerts etc

3. Just easier to get exposure right. I can do it with a dslr, it's just easier and quicker with m/less.

I could go back to a Canon SL2 and 24mm F2,8 STM instead of my X-T2 and 23mm F2 if I had to though. Just lose those 3 conveniences listed above.

I note your Instagram account is private.

The earth laughs in flowers.
-Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Before you say (or post in our context) = THINK.
Is what you're going to say - True. Helpful. Important (or Inspiring.) Necessary. Kind.
I have G.A.S, - gear avoidance syndrome.

Yeah I've been really procrastinating with it and only have about ten photos on there out of hundreds lol. I'll open it up when I get round to uploading. It's the sequencing that is hard. Nothing worse than poorly sequenced work.... cheers

 

[Phil A Martin]

I would not want to be accused of insulting God, and I not sure I would be concerned of a user name like mega has to say.

both systems have their uses, I was able to get some usable shots with both types of systems this past week.

The irony being, whilst they are denigrating DSLRs as old fashion, the first thing they do when they buy a MILC camera, is to buy a knock off adapter from China and stick a fifty year old manual focus lens in it. Usually a ropey old M42 lens from the former Soviet Union.