No yet. They only have compact camphones, a la the Galaxy S4 Zoom.
A big FF camera with phone (Bluetooth) will appeal to many, I am sure.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why do mirrorless cameras have to be so small?
- Thread starter Boomanbb
- Start date
A big FF camera with phone (Bluetooth) will appeal to many, I am sure.
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,940
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
The finders are indeed more accurate. Ergonomics are up to the user...you cant say they arent more ergonomic...that makes no sense. Tale better photographs? How can you say they don't....that is very situation dependant.
Sorry, your post is really littered with personal bias....which appears to be the common.
Adrian Van
Leading Member
- Messages
- 654
- Reaction score
- 393
Would someone want to lug around a Canon 70D with 18-135mm to parks with family, or an Olympus em10 with 14-150mm, or 12-50mm?
For paid jobs or for serious family video, I would bring along a DSLR like the 70D for example.
That said, the Panasonic GX7 or GH3 is smaller and does great video for family events.
For personal, family and hobby, the smaller system seems appealing and far better than a cell phone camera.
DSLRs are ideal for advanced photography for demanding jobs in sports, detailed low light landscape and wildlife, and fast paced event photography.
However, Sony A7 series, works very well with landscape and portrait. So depends on which mirrorless we are talking about. Olympus EM1 and Panasonic GH4 are also great cameras with the right lenses for a lot of uses.
However these few mentioned are not the smallest of the mirrorless that OP is discussing, like Olympus EPL series for example.
For paid jobs or for serious family video, I would bring along a DSLR like the 70D for example.
That said, the Panasonic GX7 or GH3 is smaller and does great video for family events.
For personal, family and hobby, the smaller system seems appealing and far better than a cell phone camera.
DSLRs are ideal for advanced photography for demanding jobs in sports, detailed low light landscape and wildlife, and fast paced event photography.
However, Sony A7 series, works very well with landscape and portrait. So depends on which mirrorless we are talking about. Olympus EM1 and Panasonic GH4 are also great cameras with the right lenses for a lot of uses.
However these few mentioned are not the smallest of the mirrorless that OP is discussing, like Olympus EPL series for example.
Last edited:
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,940
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
Not only bigger...but more accurate viewfinder. Lens selection isnt a problem
I'm with you on this one. I like a large body camera. I could do without the weight but the body size is just right on my D800. I have a Nikon 1 V2, I enjoy the camera but the body size drives me nuts. I'm always hitting a wrong button.
If the big thing about mirrorless is the small body then I'm out. I have nothing against mirrorless but give me a large body.
Drevis Neloren
Well-known member
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 300
You seem to be very caught up in this and unwilling to accept that size isn't the ONLY important factor (like I have said a few times before) but a very important factor nonetheless. I never said size is the end all be all when buying a mirrorless camera but you seem to want to box me into that corner.
Well, the GH4 while still capable of taking very good still shots, is a camera for people that want to shoot high quality video. I have a feeling the larger size is important because it's easier for people to hold the camera steady. I know if I shot a lot of video even with the Pansonic IS lenses I would want a larger camera to feel more secure when I'm shooting video.
EM1's size is kind of an illusion, most of the bulk is coming from the grip and VF hump. It's still a pretty small camera.
Well, bully for you!
--
Confound it all. I was quite sure I was invisible, or at least transparent.
Last edited:
Why? Because you touch yourself at night.
Not going to bother reading all the other posts, but most of them I'm sure touch on or echo what I'm about to say:
With my old Nikons, you basically had three sizes: Medium, Large, and Holy-Crap-You-Could-Beat-a-Man-to-Death-With-This-Thing. With mirrorless, you can have any size you want (Pentax Q, you make me ashamed
). I can have my tiny E-PM2 or A5000 or my NX1/A7+grip.
Not going to bother reading all the other posts, but most of them I'm sure touch on or echo what I'm about to say:
With my old Nikons, you basically had three sizes: Medium, Large, and Holy-Crap-You-Could-Beat-a-Man-to-Death-With-This-Thing. With mirrorless, you can have any size you want (Pentax Q, you make me ashamed
). I can have my tiny E-PM2 or A5000 or my NX1/A7+grip.oklaphotog
Leading Member
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 648
Well a mirrorless body would surely handle like crap with a 300/2.8 or bigger on it. Therefore a mirrorless is too small. A FF DSLR isn't too big when compared to the RB67 + the pro 35mm slr they can effectively replace. For a serious photog, FF DSLRs are a nice setup that is also lightweight and convenient considering what they needed previously.
If Sony can get OSPDAF to truly track as well as a DSLR (and they are getting close with the A6k)... Then dumped SLT in favor of OSPDAF on an A-Mount body..... You'd have the best of both worlds... Mirrorless tech in a body that handles well with serious lenses.
Drevis Neloren
Well-known member
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 300
I'm starting to get the feeling that Macro Nutrients is just arguing for the sake of arguing. I mean, if you can't admit or see that a big reason (perhaps THE reason to most) for either switching to mirrorless or getting a second mirrorless camera to compliment your DSLR setup is size then you're in denial.
--
Confound it all. I was quite sure I was invisible, or at least transparent.
Last edited:
Boomanbb
Veteran Member
Eons-m with 22mm, eyefi card to iPad, edited in snapseed and photogene and uploaded via 4g lte.
Ben
--
Disagree without being disagreeable
It would be the only reason I would get one (again). They are in that awkward notch between too big and too small. Not big enough to have the benefits of mass and inertia but not small enough to be really convenient in your bag. Usually a decent point and shoot (if there is such a thing ) will do the job.
Having said that I do have my eye out for a good used EOS-M. If it had a flip out screen and, say, 24MP I'd try even harder.
) will do the job.Having said that I do have my eye out for a good used EOS-M. If it had a flip out screen and, say, 24MP I'd try even harder.
hifimacianer
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 442
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 248
What's the problem with a DSLR form factor? In fact the form factor is just because the EVF has to be placed somewhere, and if it's set in the middle of the body, it's usable for left and right eyed shooting.
But even with this form factor, the mirrorless are smaller/lighter than a DSLR.
The M3 has both of those, and isn't THAT unreasonably priced compared with the T6 twins. With the EVF it does become more expensive though.
Christoph Stephan
Veteran Member
While the DSLRs might be the SUVs in size, mirrorless are the SUVs in fuel (=battery power) consumption.....
--
Chris
-----
http://www.redbubble.com/people/christopher363
Last edited:
Christoph Stephan
Veteran Member
Their lack of a viewfinder would kill that one for me. Framing with the screen is very uncomfortably in sunshine - and the shooting position is less stable, mor prone to camera shake...)
If I ever get a mirrorless, it would have to be one with viewfinder.
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,633
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
I would say a few others as well like the E-M1, GH3/4(probably the most obvious) and the X-T1I you live outside of Asia and you're a male, you probably aren't part of the target demographic for many mirrorless camera bodies. In the United States, we've never even seen the EOS M2 and M3, Olympus barely has any distribution and the Nikon 1 is best know for clearance sales of the J-model at Target.Why can't the makers make them larger? Mirrorless are lousy for shooting action because they are tiny. My eos-m has a dumb way to 'reduce' slippage with the microscopic fingertip grip, but is a hassle to use in rapid fire or when I'm sweating. They keep adding more evf BS but they don't address really important stuff like the cameras needing to be held with tweezers.
Going on vacation tomorrow! Taking the eos-m, leaving the big boys at the house. They have earned a break.
Ben
Disagree without being disagreeable
In short, mirrorless manufacturers aren't marketing these cameras to males in North America with 95% percentile sized hands. The sole exception is the Sony A7II which gained a much larger and more ergonomic grip.
Last edited:
This comment didn't age well.
Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but it's about time a camera company put mirrorless innards in a DSLR body.
Leonard Migliore
Forum Pro
Pentax did that in 2012. It didn't go over that well.
Maybe it would be a good idea to read all those :
why are cameras still so big ?
threads first.
I think we can expect the Nikon and Canon full pro models to give larger sizes. Closer/similar to a D6.
After the R5 pushing the limits we can also hope somebody is realizing small size seriously limits things.
Personally I wish we'd go back to the MF modular type cameras. Yes I know it'll likely raise prices but cameras that let the user build to suit would be nice. We used to be able to pick viewfinder type,film back,winder etc. A camera that let people pick a smaller battery pack for size. Or a larger one for endurance. Pick storage. For some internal. Others might be better off with external.
To a certain extent we see this with the companies going with Atmos to record raw via HDMI.
After the R5 pushing the limits we can also hope somebody is realizing small size seriously limits things.
Personally I wish we'd go back to the MF modular type cameras. Yes I know it'll likely raise prices but cameras that let the user build to suit would be nice. We used to be able to pick viewfinder type,film back,winder etc. A camera that let people pick a smaller battery pack for size. Or a larger one for endurance. Pick storage. For some internal. Others might be better off with external.
To a certain extent we see this with the companies going with Atmos to record raw via HDMI.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum