waboo
Forum Enthusiast
Does mirrorless produce a better result?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why mirrorless?
- Thread starter waboo
- Start date
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 18,132
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
Not necessarily. It does offer a different shooting experience with an EVF rather than an OVF.
Last edited:
G
greg 123
Guest
Of course results depend on the person holding the camera not whether the camera is mirrorless or DSLR. Mirrorless might make it easier for some people to get to the shot or take it. Again it depends on the particulars of the mirrorless setup vs the DSLR setup.
Bobo Hodls
Forum Pro
Generally, no. Specifically, it depends on what bodies are being compared. I assume you mean better than a DSLR. . . Different digital camera formats are just different means to the same general ends, though some are more suited to certain specific objectives than others.
Any differences in results would vary with what you were photographing. Image quality alone - no reason for any difference because of mirrorless or dslr. Advantages typically smaller and lighter but you loose the optical viewfinder and realtime connection with subject.
Wingsfan
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,531
- Reaction score
- 1,597
For me, it's the size of the body/lens system. 10mp has been about all I've ever needed, so the 16 and 20 mp m43 bodies are sufficient for 13x19" prints for me.
Like a car or home purchase, you have to evaluate your needs and budget before you decide to buy. m43 is what met my needs.
Like a car or home purchase, you have to evaluate your needs and budget before you decide to buy. m43 is what met my needs.
drj3
Forum Pro
A properly exposed, properly focused image taken with equal quality lenses with the same focal length (field of view)/aperture, should be essentially the same.
The DSLR offers the advantage of a real time optical viewfinder. The mirrorless with an Electronic viewfinder shows you the image from the sensor, so you can see and correct the exposure and magnify the view to check for best focus.
There are other differences, but you need to compare specific DSLRs and mirrorless cameras for those.
007peter
Forum Pro
There used to be 2 strong reasons for going mirrorless.
1. Small Size (but today, mirrorless size has grown bigger)
2. VIDEO. video is essential just a continuous Live View, ie Mirrorless. 5 years ago, Canon DSLR focus poorly in Live View, and Video Tracking was a joke. Today, Canon Dual Pixel AF is superior in continuous AF tracking. Canon lens used to be loud and makes AF noise, Today Canon has many excellent Quiet STM lens for video.
Only Nikon is still stucked in the inferior Video, Canon has mostly caught up to mirrorless. It's One remaining weakness is the refusal to add 4K VIDEO to drive the sales of 5dmk4.
Small dale like Canon SL2 that combine the small size advantage of mirrorless, plus using Canon superior Dual Pixel AF sensor, plus articulating LCD (big requirement in videos) plus a line of excellent Quiet Video centric STM lens, plus $549 price tag makes it a very compelling options. Canon has effectively dilute the distinction between mirrorless vs DSLR. Put any Canon in like view, you already have a mirrorless camera.
D
Donald B
Guest
For me its a big yes, shooting macro, being able to use magnified view, live dof preview and focus peaking all at the same time looking through the vf in bright sun light to shoot the surface of a flys eye. also face and eye detect when shooting in the studio while streaming live view to a hd monitor ,the contrast af is far more realiable than any dslr I have used. If you can nail focus with a dslr image quality will be the same though.
don
don
If you're talking purely about image quality, then no. It will deliver the same IQ as a DSLR (of comparable sensor size) but in a smaller camera package.
But in terms of usage, I do find it delivers better results for me because I like face AF lock-on and wide-area AF. I love having the camera lock onto a face and track that face throughout the frame. It saves me from doing a lot of the focus-lock-recompose that I did with my DSLR. This is particularly useful for portrait and people photography. I find I get fewer mis-focused shots and fewer missed shots in general.
As for exposure, I like the real-time exposure simulation I get with an EVF. I also like having a histogram in the viewfinder, which also helps optimize exposure (especially if you use the "Expose To The Right" method). I also find that I do less chimping, which means I can concentrate more on shooting, rather than checking my images after I shot them.
As for composition, I also find I get better results with mirrorless because I like to set my EVF to black-and-white simulation mode. I love seeing a black-and-white image in the viewfinder because it allows me to focus on lines, shapes, and patterns, rather than being distracted by colors. It allows me to see the world more abstractly. The idea is that if you can compose a good image in black-and-white, that'll be a good image, and it'll look great in color! It's all about optimizing the composition. And since I shoot RAW, I can get a color image even though I composed the image in black-and-white. This has helped me tremendously with my composition. You can't do that with an OVF.
Last edited:
G
greg 123
Guest
Live veiw isn't the same as an EVF. There is significant useful extra information you get with an EVF that isn't in the OVF. The net result is less need for chimping and you gain the ability to quickly and accurately expose to the right. Looking at live view on a DSLR means holding the camera out in front of you in a less steady position, not to mention limited visibility in the sun.
Contrast AF on mirrorless is accurate without micro af calibration which is often necessary with DLSR cameras.
Mirrorless are starting to show higher frame rates than DSLRs. I don't know of a DSLR that keeps up with 60 fps burst shooting (18 fps w/continuous autofocus) on an EM1ii. This is faster continuous autofocus frame rate than any Canon or Nikon. AF performance of mirrorless cameras for moving targets is improving, but not yet up to DSLR levels.
Last edited:
First of all, using the rear LCD sucks compared to using an eye-level viewfinder. If you want all the great features of mirrorless (real-time exposure simulation, wide area AF, face detection AF, real-time histogram, etc), you have to pull your eye away from the viewfinder, manually switch to Live View mode to flip up the mirror, and look at the rear LCD. That sucks! So the SL2 certainly does not dilute the appeal of mirrorless cameras, except maybe for the ones that don't have an EVF. But even against those cameras, and other mirrorless cameras in general, the SL2 is not really that compact or small. It's basically the same size as the flagship, top-of-the-line Sony A9 which is a FF camera that is far more powerful than the SL2.
And when you compare it against comparably-priced mirrorless cameras, such as the A6000, the SL2 is a lot larger and chunkier, while still underperforming.
Ultimately, people don't like working off the rear LCD as a viewfinder. Plus, I think the SL2 will prime more people to see the advantages of full mirrorless. They'll become accustomed to all the "mirrorless" features they get when using the SL2 in "mirrorless mode", but then they'll realize they lose all those features when going back to "DSLR mode". And ultimately, a lot of users will realize they'd just rather have a camera that was in mirrorless mode all the time, whether you're using the rear LCD or the eye-level viewfinder! Does the SL2 "dilute the distinction between mirrorless vs DSLR"? I think it actually accentuates the difference for many users! They'll see all the features and capabilities that they lose when they go back to "DSLR mode": no more face AF, no more wide area AF, no more exposure preview, no more on-screen histogram, etc. What they're left with is a dim, small, low-magnification pentamirror viewfinder that lacks all of these features. Who knows, it actually might be a ploy to get more users to convert to mirrorless by highlighting the deficiencies of DSLR OVFs!
Last edited:
waboo
Forum Enthusiast
Thanks Bob that's the answer I was looking for.
Yes. No. Is that clear? ;-)
In terms of image quality, the results are largely the same. Mirrorless does have a few minor advantages for lens design, such as:
• Easier to add in-body stabilization
• Lenses rely less on retrofocal designs
• It's easier to integrate software corrections
In terms of ergonomics, it depends. Mirrorless allows much more flexibility of body designs, so manufacturers offer a variety of options. This ranges from boxy retro rangefinder-style (e.g. viewfinder on the far left) to modern designs with grips. Some manufacturers do a good job with this, others... less so.
Mirrorless offers smaller bodies and lenses. Even "large" mirrorless bodies are significantly smaller than DSLRs of the same class and sensor size.
In terms of viewfinders, opinion varies greatly. Some prefer optical viewfinders, as it means no lag, and photographers are accustomed to it. EVFs offer 100% view, histograms, blinkies, settings previews and more. Some people get really wrapped up in this.
DSLRs offer better battery life, hands down.
AF is a mixed bag. Long story short, flagship mirrorless pretty much match DSLRs. Entry-level and mid-range DSLR offers better C-AF / tracking.
I'd say at this point there are few things you can do with a DSLR, that you can't do with a latest-gen mirrorless. And some of that is based on brand advantages rather than technology -- e.g. a pro sports photographer is almost always going to go for Canon and Nikon as their main rig, because of the professional infrastructure.
My guess is that when Nikon and Canon put out serious mirrorless options, at least some of the contention will dissipate.
What is this "real time connection" nonsense? You get every bit as much real-time connection with your subject whether you're using a mirrorless camera or a DSLR. I know, because I use both. If anything, I get more real-time connection with my subject thanks to face detection AF which allows me to lock onto my subject's face regardless of whether they move in the frame. That means a lot less focus-lock-recompose than used to do with my DSLR. Doing a lot of focus-lock-recompose really breaks connection with your subject because it creates a delay in shooting as you do your focus-lock-recompose routine. And what the subject sees is you waving your camera back and forth, LOL. No thanks, I can't go back to using a camera without face AF lock-on. It allows me to connect with my subject better. Now, the only time I really do focus-lock-recompose is when I don't have a face in the scene, or when I intentionally disable face lock AF.
Last edited:
Both viewfinder are "real time".
Result is not dependent on camera. The reasons I switched to mirrorless were
1. Much better sensor, better IQ at lower price range. From Canon T2i to Fuji-X, then from 6D to A7R2.
2. being able to adapt Legacy lens (although I admit I don't use them as much). The A7R2 has IBIS.
3. The EVF is actually a joy to use. I can see all the information, preview, review on the EVF. This is important for my older folks (who also has more money to spend)
4. Mirrorless provides higher quality lenses. Lot of yesteryear DSLR lenses can't keep up with high resolution sensor.
5. Icing on the cake: lighter and smaller than DSLR counterpart.
Tuloom
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,141
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 7,164
Hell yes.
drj3
Forum Pro
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum