Is Mirrorless an advantage?

Kerry Pierce · Oct 25, 2014

Joe Sherwood said:
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/...irrorless+ditching+the+DSLR+Olympus+Sony+Fuji

Sorry, but I stopped reading when she said that professional cameras were judged by their looks. There are a few people that significantly care about the appearance of their cameras, but they are in a very small minority and I've never before encountered a pro that said anything like that. She's the first, assuming that she is a pro.

Bottom line, for me, is that I've already had/used mirrorless cameras. Today, DSLRs do many things that many mirrorless cameras can't do and it's been that way for a long time. Mirrorless won't appeal to me until they defeat the lag and the battery drain.

And, No, I don't think that if Nikon does offer a d400, that it will be mirrorless. If I'm wrong, I likely won't buy one.

In 5 or 10 years, maybe all of the issues with mirrorless will be solved. Until then, I'm sticking with my dslrs.

Kerry

Paul B Jones · Oct 25, 2014

Important question. I think a lot of DSLR shooters are pondering when (if ever) the right time to make the shift will be. At the moment even the most passionate mirrorless proponents seem to concede that for big lens sports and wildlife photography DSLRs are still a better tool, although the gap is closing.

I will keep monitoring DPR forums over the coming years watching for signs of the shift happening (I pride myself on being a late adopter). My one mirrorless experience so far (looking through an EVF) was not pleasing.

BillyInya · Oct 25, 2014

In my own opinion yes.

There will come a day when people won't believe modern professional cameras had big mirror mechanisms that actually had to hurtle upwards at a great rate or speed then impact with a stopper and then come back down to again impact with the bottom stopper.

And in burst images mode that entire mirror mechanism is smashing up and down repeatedly. The vibrations this would cause can be really extreme as you would imagine. Too many frames per second and you most certainly are not allowing enough time for all the vibrations to dissipate before the next shot.

To me the whole idea of an entire mirror mechanism having to hurtle upwards and downwards inside a camera is a relic action from the past.

No such moving mechanics and no vibrations at all with mirrorless.

I invite anybody to take a series of burst mode images on a tripod and then compare one of the middle images to a single image taken with the camera on tripod but in mirror up mode.

wjansen · Oct 25, 2014

And action is where the A77ii truly excels and for which it is most noted.

n057 · Oct 25, 2014

wjansen said:
Sounds like for you only an optical will suffice. Best to steer clear of EVF annoyances! ;-)

??? Suffice ???

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

wjansen · Oct 25, 2014

Suffice it to say! ;-)

Osvaldo Cristo · Oct 25, 2014

Mirror less looks a great idea. I am particularly attracted by noiseless picture capture and overall reliability, but most of the current crop of mirror less:

they are not from a bigger player. The lens selection is very limited and the "converters" kill the AF - it looks a joke in the XXI century
they eliminated the mirror but (mostly) not eliminated the mechanical shutter! Oh, please, make the full job!
most of the implementations for mirror less are in a small cameras with IMO very poor ergonomics. Who tell them everybody wants a smallish camera body?
except for a very few selected models, all of them insists in small sensors. Personally I think it is not a big issue as I am comfortable with almost any sensor size IF it has appropriate IQ and CORRECT lens type availability for its size, but a significant part of potential buyers can see it as an intolerable trade off
EVF has a few advantages and a lot of dis-advantage, mainly at the current availability. I prefer OVF by far and probably I am not alone
The thing drinks lots of battery

I have no prejudice against mirror less technology. Actually I really believe it will eventually replace the traditional mirror (and shutter) but I could not say when. I am sure the biggest two manufacturers will go to that technology when they believe it is mature enough. They will make it compatible with their mainstream lenses and probably they will not go to smallish bodies. They will remind cameras needs to be handled by humans and their hands have a size...

Even believing probably it is the technology for the future I cannot see its impact in the present, at last for my own picture making process or purchase policy. I bought recently my D810 and a couple of new lenses and I am happy with them. The future.. is in the future! Today I really think my money could not purchase a better solution for my current needs.

I have difficulties to understand people going upset just because some do not believe the current technology for mirror less is not good enough for some!

All the best,

Eric Hanauer · Oct 25, 2014

I've switched from a D7000 to a Panasonic GH4, primarily for its video capabilities. I've held on to my D300 primarily for action. But for every other type of shooting, video or still, the GH4 is superior.

It's revealing that most of the posters here have little or no experience with mirror less camera systems

marcio_napoli · Oct 29, 2014

Kerry,

I'll just stir the pot, in the most honest way.

That "how the camera looks" factor, yes, it does play a lot. If you haven't seen anything like it, that's probably because it depends on your market type.

You haven't seen it happening personally, but it does.

If your particular market is "status hungry", then you do have to look the part, and so does your cameras.

I'm not making things up, just being honest with you on this.

Nothing is more "status hungry" than fashion photography market.

I can honestly tell you that I partially bought my Phase One for this reason alone (bigger camera, louder shutter, and different form factor than the average DSLR).

And it pays off:

I've seem people (stylists and marketing guys) hear the louder shutter, and come closer "hey, wow, man. What camera is this? I've never seen one personally. It must have THE image quality, huh?".

Needless to say, I've never heard that on my D200 > D300 > D700 > D800 changes. Not even once, because they're all identical looking black boxes.

I love my P1 more than anything, it's on a league of its own on IQ. But I'm the first in line to admit a number of fashion photographers buy them for display of status alone.

Another example:

A friend of mine, a quite renowned European fashion photographer.

I've never seen him in any public shots without his Canon, and some big, white L lens.

He just shoot with teles?

When Canon announces a white wide-angle lens, then I'll see him with one, on a public image.

In the meantime, he's publicly seen only with white teles. Now, why is that ?

Another example:

I have a videographer friend of mine that refuses to use my GH2, just because he thinks it's a tiny, toyish camera.

He knows what it's capable of, but won't use it, for it's a too small, toy camera.

If you think he's alone on that, why do you think Panny grew the GH3 / 4 size? (almost to D7000 size, yet no mirror box...)

See what I mean?

Some markets demand you to look the part.

It's most possible that the photographer in the article have faced similar situations.

No matter what my clients think of my skills, I'd rather show up in a fashion shoot with big guns, big lenses, then with a D3300 + tiny 35 f1.8.

One last example, and a bit of stretchy one at that:

Chase Jarvis has a video on YT showing what he takes on a shoot. It's an almost endless list of gear.

Why? Just to satisfy our curiosity?

No, it's a statement, to competition and clients alike.

He's very wise at marketing, and he knows every bit of extra marketing juice counts.

Even at his level, it counts.

No offense intended, but to think these factors don't come into play, in the competitive professional scenario of today, is a bit naive.

There are markets where these things doens't matter. But there are those that really do.

Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com

String · Oct 29, 2014

Osvaldo Cristo said:
they are not from a bigger player. The lens selection is very limited and the "converters" kill the AF - it looks a joke in the XXI century

Actually, m43 and Fuji have quite a bit bigger (and much better) lens selection than Nikon DX (native).

Osvaldo Cristo said:
they eliminated the mirror but (mostly) not eliminated the mechanical shutter! Oh, please, make the full job!

most of the implementations for mirror less are in a small cameras with IMO very poor ergonomics. Who tell them everybody wants a smallish camera body?

Well the E-M1, XT-1 are pretty universally praised for their ergonomics.

Osvaldo Cristo said:
except for a very few selected models, all of them insists in small sensors. Personally I think it is not a big issue as I am comfortable with almost any sensor size IF it has appropriate IQ and CORRECT lens type availability for its size, but a significant part of potential buyers can see it as an intolerable trade off

Well Sony and Leica are using FF sensors. Fuji and Samsung are using AP-C sensors. Actually the only "systems" using small sensors are m43 and Nikon.

Osvaldo Cristo said:
EVF has a few advantages and a lot of dis-advantage, mainly at the current availability. I prefer OVF by far and probably I am not alone

OVF's are great in the FX world; not so great in the DX world. Again, the EM-1, XT-1 and Sony A7 series have very nice EVF's

Osvaldo Cristo said:
The thing drinks lots of battery

That they do however two batteries will last a full day of shooting. A second battery weighs a LOT less than an FX lens

Osvaldo Cristo said:
I have no prejudice against mirror less technology. Actually I really believe it will eventually replace the traditional mirror (and shutter) but I could not say when. I am sure the biggest two manufacturers will go to that technology when they believe it is mature enough. They will make it compatible with their mainstream lenses and probably they will not go to smallish bodies. They will remind cameras needs to be handled by humans and their hands have a size...

Even believing probably it is the technology for the future I cannot see its impact in the present, at last for my own picture making process or purchase policy. I bought recently my D810 and a couple of new lenses and I am happy with them. The future.. is in the future! Today I really think my money could not purchase a better solution for my current needs.

Totally dependent on your needs I guess. For some, the small size/weight of the m43 is a more pressing need. Some prefer the Leica and other prefer using Phase 1 backs. Isn't it a good time to be a photographer?

Osvaldo Cristo said:
I have difficulties to understand people going upset just because some do not believe the current technology for mirror less is not good enough for some!

All the best,

Kerry Pierce · Oct 29, 2014

marcio_napoli said:
No offense intended, but to think these factors don't come into play, in the competitive professional scenario of today, is a bit naive.

Thanks for the informative post. I had no idea that such things were so important in certain markets and I'll take you at your word that such markets exist.

marcio_napoli said:
There are markets where these things doens't matter. But there are those that really do.

In the 40+ years I've been playing with cameras, in several different parts of the US, I've never heard of that. But, even so, I'd suggest that the most important part is being able to use the gear at a top level.

IOW, just because I buy a Phase One, doesn't mean that I'll get a ton of high dollar gigs, in any market. I'll still have to have the skills in photography, lighting, and post processing and produce excellent imagery.

Kerry

marcio_napoli · Oct 29, 2014

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for your reply.

I believe that's an interesting thing about gear, and should be a nice discussion, even for another thread.

But yes... unfortunatelly, it does happen... at least in the fashion photography market, which I can tell because I have "on the field" experience.

That particular market is a bit rotten, in a way that everything that helps status, is a must for the photographer.

I've personally seen a renowned photographer (at least in my area) have tons of work, just because he was well known, and had a big studio with lots of gear.

That particular photographer was not the most dedicated, passionate, nor the most skilled, but he experienced at least 10 years at the top of the market just because of a large studio + lots of gear + strong connections.

That's just about it. Nothing about skills, and all about "gear" + the right connections.

I can't personally tell about other areas of photography, but I guess if you're a freelancer sports shooter, and shows up with the biggest tele in the town, you're surely ahead of some competition.

Scratch that. I can't tell for others.

But at least for the fashion market, I can honestly say that everything that increases status (big cameras, big lenses), is a must.

That Phase One serves the purpose of "making a statement".

If photographer A shoots only 35mm, and B shoots 35mm + DMF, as long as B knows how to shoot and advertise himself, that DMF gear will get him the lead, in a status oriented market.

One important note:

I'm sure sooner or later, the argument will pop up: "hey! But Joe McNally can shoot a D90 and still have the largest clients!".

Sure

But he's Joe McNally. I bet he can make the client trust him using just his Iphone

But... consider one is not Joe McNally nor Steve McCurry. One is just some guy running his photo business in the town.

And the client is watching while you work, and thinking "hmmm... drop the ball, and next time I'll hire your competitor!!"

If that is the case, I'd personally bring the circus along, just in case

The biggest lenses, flashes, cameras, tripods, everything. Just to make an statement: "sir, you hired the right guy. Don't worry".

Then the famous question is raised: but isn't your skills, or portfolio that counts?

Yes and no.

I've personally seen clients in the fashion market hiring the guy that had the most gear, not the best portfolio.

Kerry, allow me to tell just one last tale?

Two years ago, my assistant left me and right away got employed by my town's largest advertising agency.

She convinced the agency's folks to take a look at my portfolio, and so they invited me for a little chat.

Ok, everything went well, and just 2 weeks later they called me saying I would shoot a very large company's fashion catalog.

Everyone was extremelly afraid, because I'm just a small fish, and the agency was betting on me.

They didn't knew me that well.

Ok, they were betting? Yes.

But at the same time they were so afraid of me scr#wing things up, that an agency guy called and said:

"Marcio, you're gonna do it right. Don't scr#w it, man. If you let us down, you'll never, ever work for us again, ok? Don't scr#w it. I'm dead serious!"

He was such a d#ck, and continued to be an @ss till the very day scheduled for shooting the catalog.

On that day, the first thing I did was to unload the car, and make all my gear visible.

I brought tons of gear: tripods, flashes, every lens and camera body I had.

When I grabbed my Phase One out of the backpack, the marketing guy even mentioned: "now, THAT's a camera, huh?!"

Seeing all my stuff, that agency's "lovely" (coff coff) guy suddenly started to be nice with me, just like magic.

I guess, the power of gear, right?

In case you wanna see that day's behind the scenes, here it is:

B.g.o Company - Winter 2013:

So, I defend the theory that gear matters, because I've personally seen it happening first hand.

Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com

Bailey151 · Oct 30, 2014

String said:
Actually, m43 and Fuji have quite a bit bigger (and much better) lens selection than Nikon DX (native).

String said:
Well the E-M1, XT-1 are pretty universally praised for their ergonomics.

String said:
Well Sony and Leica are using FF sensors. Fuji and Samsung are using AP-C sensors. Actually the only "systems" using small sensors are m43 and Nikon.OVF's are great in the FX world; not so great in the DX world. Again, the EM-1, XT-1 and Sony A7 series have very nice EVF's
That they do however two batteries will last a full day of shooting. A second battery weighs a LOT less than an FX lens
Totally dependent on your needs I guess. For some, the small size/weight of the m43 is a more pressing need. Some prefer the Leica and other prefer using Phase 1 backs. Isn't it a good time to be a photographer?

One of the best summarys I've seen. They do not meet everyone's needs but they are or can be far more advanced than DSLRs. The Fuji XT-1 makes my D7100 look like a dinosaur........which is a bit humorous given the retro design of the Fuji. The point about the lenses is correct, this is an area where companies like Fuji excel. One kit lens is a 18-55 F2.8 - 4 = better & faster than the Canikon offerings. The EVF is also well regarded, yes, you can make it lag by spinning 45 or so degrees but does this really affect much? No, most tracking is done within a few degrees. Is it as good as an OVF for tracking? No, but it's damn close & for everything else it's far better.

How's seeing the exact exposure before taking the shot with an OVF? Nothing beats seeing exactly how the shot will turn out.
How split screen in OVF?
Focus aids like zebra lines?
No focus adjust as it's done off the sensor = 100% eveytims
Can you adjust the size of the focus point?
Yep, batteries can be an issue - they're cheap & very small. I can carry two & literally forget they're in my pocket.
AF? Try a V3, in most light it can out focus & will definately out track anything aside from maybe a D4 in Nikon's lineup. It has 171 focus point......how many do you have?

At present mirrorless is very, very good but it will take a couple/few more generations before it's better at everything. Camera like Fuji can give you the image quality & a lot of mirrorless features but the AF isn't quite there, Nikon's CX can give you the blazing AF speed but the image quality isn't there. Now when we get something that combines the two?

That's the huge difference - mirrorless is closer to it's infancy, SLR it pretty much pushed as far as it can do - the entire cycle is simply too slow & inefficient. With every release there a fewer areas where the SLR is the clear cut winner.

PHXAZCRAIG · Oct 31, 2014

There are all kinds of advantages, but the one huge disadvantage has to be fixed first. DSLRs still have superior autofocus performance, mostly in speed.

A mirrorless camera should be cheaper, by far, to build. Once the AF technology improves enough to equal a DSLR, you'll see people flocking to them, since they'd likely be sold a lot cheaper.

String · Oct 31, 2014

PHXAZCRAIG said:
There are all kinds of advantages, but the one huge disadvantage has to be fixed first. DSLRs still have superior autofocus performance, mostly in speed.

A mirrorless camera should be cheaper, by far, to build. Once the AF technology improves enough to equal a DSLR, you'll see people flocking to them, since they'd likely be sold a lot cheaper.

redhed17 · Oct 31, 2014

Most DSLRs cameras have great AF, with the mid/top range DSLRs excelling. With mirrorless cameras the AF is very variable, some may be great, most will be average, and that is in good light. Add poor light, and there are fewer very good in low light. They are obviously getting better all the time though, but add in how old the mirrorless camera is and the AF could be a lot worse than a DSLR.

DSLRs AF is quite good. I don't think you could use that general phrase for most mirrorless cameras.

For those with mirrorless cameras though, as long as you are happy, that's all that matters.

String · Oct 31, 2014

redhed17 said:
Most DSLRs cameras have great AF, with the mid/top range DSLRs excelling. With mirrorless cameras the AF is very variable, some may be great, most will be average, and that is in good light. Add poor light, and there are fewer very good in low light. They are obviously getting better all the time though, but add in how old the mirrorless camera is and the AF could be a lot worse than a DSLR.

DSLRs AF is quite good. I don't think you could use that general phrase for most mirrorless cameras.

For those with mirrorless cameras though, as long as you are happy, that's all that matters.

Midwest · Oct 31, 2014

marcio_napoli said:
Hi Kerry,

Thanks for your reply.

I believe that's an interesting thing about gear, and should be a nice discussion, even for another thread.

But yes... unfortunatelly, it does happen... at least in the fashion photography market, which I can tell because I have "on the field" experience.

Given the crazy nature of the fashion field and what it comes up with - like, oh, Lucite high heel shoes a foot tall - I can see the appearance of something like a camera mattering to them.

Midwest · Oct 31, 2014

Bailey151 said:
The Fuji XT-1 makes my D7100 look like a dinosaur........which is a bit humorous given the retro design of the Fuji. The point about the lenses is correct, this is an area where companies like Fuji excel. One kit lens is a 18-55 F2.8 - 4 = better & faster than the Canikon offerings.

Well, the Canon 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS USM kit lens is $249 vs $700 for the Fuji. I hope the Fuji is better!

Bailey151 said:
The EVF is also well regarded, yes, you can make it lag by spinning 45 or so degrees but does this really affect much? No, most tracking is done within a few degrees. Is it as good as an OVF for tracking? No, but it's damn close & for everything else it's far better.

How's seeing the exact exposure before taking the shot with an OVF? Nothing beats seeing exactly how the shot will turn out.

How split screen in OVF?

Focus aids like zebra lines?

No focus adjust as it's done off the sensor = 100% eveytime

Not everyone shoots photos where they have time to fiddle and twiddle everything beforehand. I realize that for some, that's part of the fun of taking photos and that's great. But we're not all the same. Those things are valuable to you, but they're worth nothing to me. That is why all the talk about one kind of camera replacing another gets tiresome. We need different things, and different cameras each have their strong points.

Bailey151 · Nov 1, 2014

Midwest said:
Well, the Canon 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS USM kit lens is $249 vs $700 for the Fuji. I hope the Fuji is better!

While they are good none of the Fuji lenses are cheap........defintely a drawback

Midwest said:
.............Not everyone shoots photos where they have time to fiddle and twiddle everything beforehand. ..........We need different things, and different cameras each have their strong points.

While would agree 100% with the last statement about differing needs nothing I mentioned is "twiddle" - it's all real time like the 1st, push the button & see the exposure. Like yourself I have no need for the split screen (don't manual focus much) but it detracts from nothing.

Is Mirrorless an advantage?

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Eric Hanauer

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts