Curious about why Mirrorless

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
davev8
davev8 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,154
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

Lori2 wrote:

When Mirrorless first came out, it sounded amazing because it would be so much smaller than full size DSLR's. I bought an M50 a couple of years ago, (and I admit, it's almost too tiny, but sure fun to carry around.) I've always dreamed though of having full frame. But I like the smaller form factor of apsc, so have never jumped to full frame. But when the coming of mirrorless, and the Canon RP, I've finally decided to take the leap.

It's almost to big for me and most of the lenses are outside of my comfort zone. And looking at the R5 and R6, those are getting back closer to the size of a DSLR.

Sony 1st FF MILC started of very small but the usability was poor that's why every generation has got bigger..also FF users tend to be more enthusiast or more pro like which means more external controls which need a body to be a minam size to accomplish this but as time goes on i think you will see more compact bodys from canon to compensate not updating the flagship M5 ...that's why i left (leaving)M

So is there another draw to mirrorless? It doesn't seem that much smaller in the end.

1st you need to decide why you want FF. if you want less noise at high ISO and shallower DOF then FF is what you want but if noise and DOF from APS-c is fine for you then you do not need FF or the increase in size FF brings

benefits of MILC is lenses below 35 mm can be made more compact and easy to make sharper also AF improvements like eye AF .some like the WUSIWUG ..i like the histogram overlay which has changed the way i shoot ..bodys are smaller my R6 feels a lot smaller than my 5D and they even managed to fit IBIS and a swivel LCD in it and kept excellent ergonomics

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8. Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have. That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it.

you are braver than me if you would leave a lens on a bus

but the kit lens on the RP is wider than your 16-28 and has the same shallow DOF at the short end  FF equivalent to 16mm is 25 or 26mm...you just saved yourself some weight

But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

i think an RP with the 24-105 and a prime like the 50 or 35 theirs is not much you can't do and will fill a very tiny camera bag ..the RP and kit lens at 105 mm will crop way past your AE-1 and 135mm prime on film

Lori

-- hide signature --

.
.
.
.
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me it is bad I know it is .....................................................................................................
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
.........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton

 davev8's gear list:davev8's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow