Reading mode: Light Dark

Honeymoon of Mirrorless wearing off?

Go to last post
K

Kruth22

New member
Messages
8
Reaction score
31
Long post ahead some ramblings, but hopefully a thought provoking discussion.


To give some backstory here, I’ve been a hobbyist for the last 5 or so years. I had a d3200 that I bought a decade ago that collected dust and a little before Covid I decided I was going to learn how to use it. I fell in love. I took it everywhere living in NYC. Photos of my kid and his friends at playgrounds, city sights, parties etc. after a bit I wanted a little better focus and grabbed a d7500. Same thing. I loved it! Higher frame rate, got some great photos of my son on his bicycle and one of my favorite photos ever of him eating some fruit at a block party.

in comes my full frame itch. Imagine what this photo would look like on FF, I thought. So I spent weeks researching back in 2020 and bought a Z5. The d750 was very tempting but I didn’t want to “go backwards, mirrorless is the future” says every YouTuber and forum poster.



Here I was with a z5 and a my 50 1.8g and a 24-120s eventually. And it was…different. I wasn’t in love. I am a tech nerd to the core and thought the autofocus detection and evf all made sense. I loved the usbc that can connect right to my Mac, but I still wasn’t in love.

Fast forward to last year I wanted to get indie basketball shots of my son, so instead of breaking the bank or having to convince my wife of a big purchase, I got a d850 used and 70-200 2.8fl. That was awesome! I loved it, the heft, back to an ovf seeing the world! It was great, I got some good photos, learned to focus and then…..GAS. If the d850 is THIS good and fun, what is the z8 like…..so I did it and bit the bullet, got the Z8.



now I have WAY more camera than I need, but it was awesome tech! Spoke to me for the advanced auto focus, high quality video (that I rarely use) a million fps, and all of that allowed some great shots at the lake. But I was missing something. The mirror slap, that tactile capture of what I’m seeing with my own eyes through the lens?



Lastly what has me thinking of going back to dslrs. Lenses. The adapter sucks just plain and simple. No d lenses work, and the balance issues it causes makes every lens feel like garbage. “Moving to mirrorless because of love the size and weight….” Ha! Jokes on you. S lenses are bigger and about the size of adapted F mount. Plus the clinical rendering of the s line had me purchase a 35 1.4g after extensive testing, just because the images just looked more pleasing. I’m not after optical protection, I’m not after Vaseline smeared art/character. I want something that when I view the photo is has depth, character, a feeling. I don’t get that with the s glass.

Was this all a honeymoon phase. Have we went so far into new tech consumerism that we are leaving something behind while chasing optical perfection and 30 fps that has all of us dreading culling images? Did I just fall victim to needing the latest and greatest and bought way above my needs (likely) while actual pro are saving time and money and delivering a product better than before. Should I have been chasing the hobby and fun of photography and not listen to all the pros and influencers? Or am I not alone? Do other people feel this way. Jumping into mirrorless and feeling like they lost something while gaining everything they wanted?



Recent shots below, thanks for getting through



2fc9408baabe449ab67e5f471b413f6a.jpg



6ed4376bf04948358d795e9db46c9304.jpg



b4cbec3f0846430fbad62da2e63be789.jpg



9699bd2f5e7243759a0e2b94c67da68f.jpg



aa7cf5d6bc664763bb15ed60cd92eadc.jpg
 
Nobody else seems to have jumped in, but I will.

Yes and no.



To an extent you are right, mirrorless has lost some of the tactile feel of using a camera. The z8 is an incredible tool, but the e-shutter and silky EVF does make it very clinical. However, I get some superb pictures - stuff I never thought I would ever manage 25 years ago, and more so than any DSLR did..

If anything, it’s made me concentrate on the photos rather than the kit more. I go out for specific photo trips more. I take more pictures. Even though the kit is less tactile, it doesn’t get in the way by being the focus.

Interestingly, I got my dream film camera recently - a Bessaflex TM. It is the total antithesis of mirrorless in every way and it feels incredible to press that shutter release button… but I hardly use it!
 
You asked:

Have we went so far into new tech consumerism that we are leaving something behind while chasing optical perfection and 30 fps that has all of us dreading culling images?

But that's the wrong question. The question should be:

Have you gone so far into new tech consumerism that you are leaving something behind while chasing optical perfection and 30 fps that has all of us dreading culling images?

Your reasons for not liking your Z are basically subjective. I never thought anyone would miss mirror slap, but you do and there's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with preferring the rendition of older lenses. But don't expect everyone to have the same preferences or even the same needs as you.

Look, I've been shooting with SLR's since the 1969 and I've gone from all-manual film cameras to autoexposure to autofocus to DSLRs and now mirrorless and each step has let me get pictures I couldn't get before..

You mention GAS, ands that's a problem for an awful lot of people. No one never seems to ask themself a simple question: What can't I do or do well with what I have that I could do better with new gear? They just assume that spending money on an "upgrade" (I hate that word) is equivalent to taking better pictures. It's not and, as you found out, you can waste a lot of money that way.

If you prefer the D850 (thought by many to be the best DSLR ever made and is now on sale) and older lenses, then enjoy them. I'd never fault you for that. But I'll keep my Z8, thank you very much.
 
I don't share the belief that photography is supposed to feel a certain way. I can appreciate that some people take enjoyment in having the act feel similar to what they have experienced in years passed, but I don't share that feeling.

I'm interested in capturing the image, and anything that helps me do that is beneficial. The new Z cameras, and lenses, help me do that more reliably than the old F gear did.

Switching to mirrorless after 20 years of dslrs took a bit of adjustment, but that's all it was, an adjustment.
 
Last edited:
Kruth22 said:
I want something that when I view the photo is has depth, character, a feeling. I don’t get that with the s glass.
Click to expand...
I keep reading about this, how older glass has more character, etc. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison, so I can understand what this is all about.

Would you be able to share some photos that illustrate your point?
 
Fabian Joya said:
I keep reading about this, how older glass has more character, etc. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison, so I can understand what this is all about.
Click to expand...
"Character" means Flare, Soft Edges and Corners, Low Contrast, Sometimes Good Bokeh and Sometimes Bad Bokeh. All that stuff we don't have to put up with any more.
 
I have never been happier with my Nikon gear after 55 years than I am now with my Z 9, Z 8 and a bunch of Z S lenses. I am very pleased that I let all my DSLRs go. It was a bit sad though when I shipped off my D850 for the trade-in on my Z 8.

--
Regards,
Nikon Z 9, Z 8, 14mm-800mm.
Computer Win 11 Pro, I7-8700K, 64GB, RTX3070TI. Travel machine: 2021 MacBook Pro M1 MAX 64GB. All Adobe apps.
FAA Remote Pilot Certificate, ATP ASMEL
Mizzou PJ '66 - Amateur Radio K6KT
www.kenseals.com
 
Last edited:
You seem to be asking "what should I want?" And frankly, using a LOT of words to do it.

No unkindness intended!

For most of us, the continuous improvement of cameras and lenses is a feature, not a bug. But not everyone agrees, and of course that is okay!

I personally think the "character" vs "clinical" dichotomy is a bunch of hooey. The most important "character" IMO is still the one who is opening the shutter. =)

Worse still is "clinical" vs "fun." Somebody is trying to tell me I am not having fun, because of the lens I am using. What a load of malarkey!

You need to decide for yourself what you want, and then buy gear and sell gear as needed. Or maybe just take up a different hobby. =)

--
Jonathan
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jtr27/
 
Last edited:
Ken Seals said:
Fabian Joya said:
I keep reading about this, how older glass has more character, etc. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison, so I can understand what this is all about.
Click to expand...
"Character" means Flare, Soft Edges and Corners, Low Contrast, Sometimes Good Bokeh and Sometimes Bad Bokeh. All that stuff we don't have to put up with any more.
Click to expand...
LOL. Not that I disagree with you, but I've heard a number of people who prefer the rendering of older glass. Matter of taste, I suppose.
 
Born2Code said:
Ken Seals said:
"Character" means Flare, Soft Edges and Corners, Low Contrast, Sometimes Good Bokeh and Sometimes Bad Bokeh. All that stuff we don't have to put up with any more.
Click to expand...
LOL. Not that I disagree with you, but I've heard a number of people who prefer the rendering of older glass. Matter of taste, I suppose.
Click to expand...
And there are/were people who dismiss digital, as you have to use film to capture the soul.

Oh, the film has to be black and white.
 
No I think you are just developing as a photographer and your needs have changed. I think this is pretty normal progression for people that are both into photography and have a tech side to them as well.

If you want lenses with character, go for those lenses, maybe stuff like the Nikon 58mm 1.4G or some stuff like older 105 / 135 DC that have interesting looks, or lenses like voigtlander/zeiss with their own looks.

And if you really want to spend some $$ and shoot some expensive vintage lenses, there is always Leica waiting for you.

A lot of people also like Fuji for their easy to use film sims, and some of their lenses also have interesting rendering, like the 35 1.4...

If you are shooting things like street photograph and portraits, you are probably going to have different concerns than landscape/architecture/astro photographers...for example.
 
Last edited:
Born2Code said:
Ken Seals said:
Fabian Joya said:
I keep reading about this, how older glass has more character, etc. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison, so I can understand what this is all about.
Click to expand...
"Character" means Flare, Soft Edges and Corners, Low Contrast, Sometimes Good Bokeh and Sometimes Bad Bokeh. All that stuff we don't have to put up with any more.
Click to expand...
LOL. Not that I disagree with you, but I've heard a number of people who prefer the rendering of older glass. Matter of taste, I suppose.
Click to expand...
I think it’s the lack of corrective elements that leave something special, not the imperfections.

As a former performing classical trumpet player I’ll say someone can have perfect sound and technique, but lack depth, musicality, something intangible, but play perfect. That’s hard to boil it down to do x or play it like y. I feel like images from lenses is the same. Some lenses have something intangible. Some say “micro contrast” whatever that really means or 3-d pop. Again not as simple as “lower f-stop”. I’ll find some examples that aren’t my kids and see if I can show anything.
 
Ken Seals said:
Fabian Joya said:
I keep reading about this, how older glass has more character, etc. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison, so I can understand what this is all about.
Click to expand...
"Character" means Flare, Soft Edges and Corners, Low Contrast, Sometimes Good Bokeh and Sometimes Bad Bokeh. All that stuff we don't have to put up with any more.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, double posts, getting tons of site errors, sorry if you see my thoughts in a couple different variations.
 
Kruth22 said:
Born2Code said:
Ken Seals said:
Fabian Joya said:
I keep reading about this, how older glass has more character, etc. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison, so I can understand what this is all about.
Click to expand...
"Character" means Flare, Soft Edges and Corners, Low Contrast, Sometimes Good Bokeh and Sometimes Bad Bokeh. All that stuff we don't have to put up with any more.
Click to expand...
LOL. Not that I disagree with you, but I've heard a number of people who prefer the rendering of older glass. Matter of taste, I suppose.
Click to expand...
I think it’s the lack of corrective elements that leave something special, not the imperfections.
As a former performing classical trumpet player I’ll say someone can have perfect sound and technique, but lack depth, musicality, something intangible, but play perfect. That’s hard to boil it down to do x or play it like y. I feel like images from lenses is the same. Some lenses have something intangible. Some say “micro contrast” whatever that really means or 3-d pop. Again not as simple as “lower f-stop”. I’ll find some examples that aren’t my kids and see if I can show anything.
Click to expand...
Lenses absolutely have different rendering, just as guitars have different sound.
 
MarkP1903 said:
Nobody else seems to have jumped in, but I will.

Yes and no.

To an extent you are right, mirrorless has lost some of the tactile feel of using a camera. The z8 is an incredible tool, but the e-shutter and silky EVF does make it very clinical. However, I get some superb pictures - stuff I never thought I would ever manage 25 years ago, and more so than any DSLR did..

If anything, it’s made me concentrate on the photos rather than the kit more. I go out for specific photo trips more. I take more pictures. Even though the kit is less tactile, it doesn’t get in the way by being the focus.

Interestingly, I got my dream film camera recently - a Bessaflex TM. It is the total antithesis of mirrorless in every way and it feels incredible to press that shutter release button… but I hardly use it!
Click to expand...
 
We are in a mirrorless world because:
1) it's much cheaper to manufacture - lower parts count, many fewer calibration/alignment procedures. Thus, more profit for manufacturers in a shrinking market.
2) video and video-enabled capture features. DSLRs are video pushme-pullyous gluing mirrorless and DSLR subsystems together with some clumsinesses. Advanced video capabilities are at the heart of today's subject identification and tracking AF interfaces and highly realistic EVFs.
But mirrorless cameras are different beasts than DSLRs, and perform better in some areas, worse in others. On balance they offer useful new functionality to the photographer, which is a good thing, because manufacturers would have moved that way in any case.
 
Last edited:
Your thoughts on lenses are incredibly, absurdly wrong. I'm going to be blunt, but also technical, as this is something I've been investigating for over 10 years now.
  1. What do you think the purpose of *any* of the elements in the design is? Got news for you - they correct/compensate. Every one of them. Let me repeat that. Every one of them.
  2. Lens designs for older lenses were simpler for a few reasons:
    1. For lenses designed prior to the advent of multi-coating:
      1. Obviously in the days of no coating or single coatings, one had to limit the number of glass surfaces or you'd have flare galore.
    2. For lenses designed after the advent of multi coating, but still within the category of what you might term legacy glass:
      1. Lens design in the "old days" didn't have as strict a set of performance requirements because the capture medium (film, or low rez digital) wasn't as demanding.
      2. Lens design in the old days was done without the use of modern day software and computing power, which allows the designer to rapidly iterate through design options by at least an order of magnitude greater than in the old days. Trust me, if the lens designers of the old era (in multicoating) had the same tools as they do today, we'd have seen more advanced lens designs.
      3. The world of optics extends beyond the scope of consumer photographic optics. Ever see the patents for some old school microscope objectives? Multi element, far more complex designs than camera lenses. Camera lenses weren't the optics with the highest performance needs in the film era. See bullet point 2.1 and think it through.
  3. As for this notion that there is some "magic" that only "simple" lenses have:
    1. Not found in *any* writings I have found regarding lens design. I went through Warren E. Smiths "Modern Optical Engineering" which is coursework for some optical design classes, and not once I did find a mandate to "use low element count lenses to make sure you have 3D pop and pleasing rendering". Ever.
    2. I've gone as far as doing blind print tests and guess what - in pretty much every case I've run, and these are a royal PITA to do, the "low element count" wonder lenses loved by the folks who cling to this low element count superiority nonsense come in LAST PLACE. Blind print tests mind you. So think about that.
    3. People often want simple explanations, which is why I think the lower element count garbage came into play. But the more I learned about lenses (and the more I continue to do so), the more I realize how insanely complex the interactions are.
So that begs the question of course - why do some people prefer older lenses?

Lens design is a balancing act. There is no such thing as a perfect lens. Impossible. Sure, you spent megabux slot machine dollars on a 200/2, 400/2.8, etc, sure, you can get one hell of a lens, but even there, they are not technically perfect.

So what does a designer do? If we're talking something beyond a 5X zoom like the 24-120, which is going to have definite performance limitations, and something beyond your budget lenses, the designer is going to take a look at the use case of the lens, the parameters he/she is restricted by (size/weight/aperture/cost/performance requirements), and perform a complex set of trade offs based upon that. So lens design is about trade offs.

But let's talk use case and tie this back in to the point earlier about old lenses (film era, lower performance requirements) and modern era. The reality is that most, but certainly not ALL, users of a modern high resolution digital camera might be involved with use cases where resolution IS GOOD. A landscape photographer who used to shoot a Mamiya 6x7, or a 4x5, but now is older and is happy to carry a lighter/smaller system that offers equivalent or close to 4x5 image quality. Or a fashion/studio photographer who has to accurately represent textures and fabrics of clothing or hair. Or someone who wants to print larger than they could with 35mm film. And of course, there are use cases where resolution is not as important. A street photographer shooting moving subjects handheld, a portrait photographer outdoors at wide apertures, also hand held. And of course, everything in between. Lenses are often designed within the context of the requirements of the medium at the time they are designed. Thus, a lens designed for the D700 era is likely to be *balanced* in a lot of ways, including resolution performance, for that sensor. Take your 35/1.4G. My favorite lens on the D700. Bloody amazing. Got the (higher rez) D800E, and couldn't believe how bad it was - utterly failed to accurately transmit the higher resolution frequencies I needed for my landscape and studio work. At the time I was staunchly pro Nikon and anti-third party, but given I test for a living and am willing to examine my biases, I checked out the Sigma 35/1.4 Art. Was drop dead shocked at how much better it was. **for my use cases**. A lens designed for the higher res sensors of the day, so no wonder I liked it better. Yet I'm sure there was some D700 shooter who may have moved to the D800E and still loved the 35/1.4G even though I now hated it... because his use cases weren't requiring what the lens did poorly. I could get a lot more technical as to the "why", but I won't, but there is a LOT more to a lens than a single grade "sharpness" score.

The problem of course is that if a manufacturer kept to the old performance standards, they'd be the laughing stock, because a lot of people *do* buy higher resolution bodies to utilize that resolution.

The other thing is your comment about the Z lenses. I seriously doubt you've used many. The better ones combine high resolution and well corrected optical performance WITH balancing/rendering that happens to work really well with people. They very much ARE a marriage of the science AND art of lens design. It's actually Nikons house look. There are probably better lenses for an astro photographer, for example. We get back to use cases. And that's why we have adapters. If you want a lower performing lens to most of us but like it's look - mount it. No problem. That's the beauty of an interchangeable lens camera.

Edit/Addendum: What's the job of the lens? IMO, to provide a natural, honest, yet pleasing and accurate rendition of the scene in front. the lens should not, in my view, *impart* anything on the scene that wasn't there. It should be honest. Even if it's rendering is tuned towards something like portraiture, we still don't want excess axial CA (which affects naturalness of color as we go OOF on a face, as one example) and we don't want astigmatism ever, and so forth. But what happens when we get an honest lens that has higher resolution? We have a more honest *device*, and if, at the end (the image, the print) you don't like the results - can you be 100% certain it's the lens every time? I would argue no. I've been around for a long time, every format, every brand, from 35 to 6x6 to 4x5 to early/mid and current digital. You know the one thing that I started (unfortunately) seeing with digital, and it's not a fault of digital? Oversharpening and poor post processing, because with digital the onus is now on us, you and me, to do our job. We don't have the lab doing it for us, nor the film manufacturer. So if you have a higher resolution, better corrected lens, the odds are it's going to do two things: one, when things are done well, make things look better because it's a more honest representation of the scene, but two, it's going to point out flaws in the chain, and poor post is absolutely one of those, along with other things. It's the difference between the mastering engineer doing your symphony's recording using something accurate to see what's right and wrong, or something cheap like a Bose wave radio, which *masks* what's right and wrong.
 
Last edited:
I think you have some great points. Maybe it’s me understanding my needs and what I want out of the hobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top