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

Started Apr 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
Art_P Veteran Member • Posts: 9,875
Sounds like you are trying to justify a purchase

zenpmd wrote:

In the long term, mirrorless technology will be very radical, but at the moment its not worth buying into for the following reasons:

  1. Nothing can compete with low light with FF.
  2. 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.
  3. The viewfinders are not 100%
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Sure, the primes are super light, but the total cost of the good primes for the OMD, for example are extortionate, and mad. And in fact, that model serves as good proof to my theory that its about GAS. If great photographers, loads in fact, can get away with just two lenses, a 35mm and an 85mm, then the total cost on something like a 6D is something like £2000. Thats great value. People are buying the OMD, a ridiculous suite of primes, including buying things like the 12mm prime. Whats the point?
  7. The AF sucks for the money the systems cost. 
  8. APS-C systems, except Pentax, lack good primes. On FF on Nikon and Canon, you can buy exceptional 85mm 1.8 for example and its not a big package. So APSC is not the answer either
  9. With the price of the 6d and d600 there is no reason not to go full frame now and just become a great photographer with the 35mm and the 85mm. This is my plan and this week I am going to order the 6d!!!

So it seems to me that it makes sense to continue working with bigger cameras for now. The people who complain about weight are those who are already doing stupid things like carrying two zooms, when they should be armed with just the 35mm and 85mm.

Interested to hear your thoughts to the contrary!

1. well, if you need a photograph of that black cat in the coal bin at night, sure, you go for a camera w the highest usable ISO.  For daytime shots it's not an issue, and my E-M5 does fine handheld for night shots by streetlight.

2. as others have said, Bokeh is a characteristic of the lens, not the sensor.  DoF is shallower because you get closer to the subject, or use a longer lens, for the same framing.

3. 100% of what the sensor sees? That's not a characteristic of mirrorless, that's a characteristic of cutting corners (in consumer DSLRs vs. semi-pro DSLRs.) It just can't be 110% of the sensor's view because it is using the sensor's image

100% of the size of the sensor?  Well, the VF van actually be any size in a mirrorless camera, not confined to the size of the sensor, where as a DSLR VF looses brightness if the image is magnified.

4. You have to carry a bag?  I can fit the OMD w the 14mm in one jacket pocket, another lens or two in the other.  It's rare that I carry a bag.  No jacket? a lens fits in my shirt pocket.  Heck, I've even lost the 14mm in my pants pocket a couple times

5. That constant aperture Panny has the same FoV as your Tamron, yet it is a little less expensive, has stabilization and is weather sealed, all while being smaller and lighter.  Tell me again why the Tamron is a better value?

6. And the cost for a full set of FF primes is cheap?

OM-D plus 17mm plus 45mm costs less and weighs less than 6d plus 35mm plus 85mm.  Just because several primes are available doesn't mean you need them all, and those who collect primes would probably do that in any system they were in, not just mirrorless...  It's just that you can pack more m43 lenses in a given space.

For versatile, I would think in terms of a 14-150 super zoom, not the narrow range of the 24-70.  Even my 12-50 is more versatile w extended range and macro mode.

7.  The AF is quite snappy, and accurate... just not great at continuous tracking.  Still better than my last DSLR tho.

8. APS relies on FF for its primes... but since weight isn't an issue for you, the lack of dedicated APS primes shouldn't be an issue either, just go for the larger FF prime of the right focal length.

9. see number 6

If you like the bigger camera, go w FF, don't let me talk you out of it- buy what works for you.  But don't expect your wants/needs to correspond to everyone else's.

If you want ultimate detail, go w medium format... or maybe large format film and a high res scanner

If you want the lots of detail and highest ISO in a reasonably portable package, then yes, FF is the answer.

If you want to follow the crowd, maybe APS is the best format for you.

If you want very good quality in a very portable package, M43 could be the answer

And if portability and convenience trumps everything else, stick w a compact.

Everything is a compromise, the trick is finding the compromise that works for you...  And don't worry so much about what others think.

OH, if you want a system to learn on, buy one generation back- either used, refurb or clearance can save big bucks over leading edge.  you don't need the best to learn, just something competent.

-- hide signature --

Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

 Art_P's gear list:Art_P's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow