Why mirrorless over dslr?

Started Jul 14, 2013 | Discussions
Create Dont Imitate Junior Member • Posts: 28
Re: Spot on

Thats right...

If they only remove the mirror... we will all STILL be stuck with the vibrating shutters... no way.

No mirror... no mechanical shutter... no AA blur filter... enough of the outdated vibrating "technology".

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 13,985
Re: each has its pros and cons
2

olliess wrote:

PerL wrote:

But when you add a tele the size advantage disappears and becomes an ergonomical disadvantage (using the same sensor size)

"If" you add a tele. For all the rest of the times you choose to walk around with a non-tele, the small camera really is smaller.

I'm also not sure why it's an "ergonomical disadvantage" to have a smaller body, as long as it has a decent handgrip and controls you can still reach with the tele attached. Unless you walk around one-handing your DSLR+tele I guess...

I dont know if you looked at the comparision, but the deeper grip of the DSLR is much more comfortable. These are compact teles (slow 55-200 lenses), with longer/bigger ones the the difference in favour of the DSLR gets bigger.

-- hide signature --
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 20,856
Re: each has its pros and cons
1

PerL wrote:

But when you add a tele the size advantage disappears and becomes an ergonomical disadvantage (using the same sensor size)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#317.321,375.90,ha,t

http://j.mp/15yDG1c

First of all, the size advantage STILL exists because it's STILL lighter and more compact compared to the same thing on a DSLR.  Lighter is lighter.  A savings of X grams is still a savings of X grams that you don't have to lug around.

As for any claims of ergonomic disadvantage, this is non-sense because no one *ever* complains about the same body/lens size ratios on DSLRs!  We regularly use *huge* lenses on DSLR bodies that easily dwarf the cameras that they are mounted on, and it's just not an issue with proper holding technique (ie, left hand supporting the big, heavy lens, allowing your right hand to just steer the camera).  Plus, you have to remember that carrying around bigger, heavier, bulkier gear presents its own "ergonomical disadvantages", too.  Try traveling with DSLR gear for 12 or 14 hour days on your feet.  Try shooting a full wedding with DSLR gear all day long, strapped to your body.  I even carry two, sometimes three (!), bodies on me.  You don't think that has its own "ergonomical disadvantages"!  LOL.  I guess gravity doesn't exist where you live.  Hahaha.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
happypoppeye
happypoppeye Veteran Member • Posts: 3,894
Size
1

...and thats it.

...unless you have specific need/want or some type of specific subject. But if you did, I don't think you would be asking. So size.

 happypoppeye's gear list:happypoppeye's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS30 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS
aldoc Regular Member • Posts: 122
+1

T3 wrote:

tex wrote:

At least, not today, July 14 2013. Maybe advances in mirrorless will eliminate the vast majority of DSLR's, but i am not holding my breath yet.

Doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. I have both, use both.

Same here. It's like having different pairs of shoes or footwear for different situations or occasions. You wouldn't wear big, heavy work boots for a trip to the beach or dinner at a nice restaurant. That's why many of us have a camera in our phone, and a compact point-n-shoot, and a mirrorless ILC, and a DSLR (or two or three). Like having different pairs of shoes for different situations or occasions.

well said

Alfred

 aldoc's gear list:aldoc's gear list
Nikon D7100 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Nikon D750 +67 more
digicosmos Regular Member • Posts: 116
Re: Why mirrorless over dslr?
1

Experiences:

Walking on campus, seeing an interesting animal like a cardinal,

DSLR: 5D2+300 F4L IS:  Oh I wish I carried them with me.

Mirrorless: Panasonic GX1 + Oly 40-150: I take out the camera from my bag and shoot.

While there is no doubt that the $2500 dslr combination offers superior image quality, I can't carry them with me every day, and thus I cannot get pictures unless I decide to take them on a photo walk.  The MFT combination costs $350, but I can walk around with them without getting exhausted, thus I get pictures.  The IQ is quite acceptable.

Bottomline: you can't get pictures if you don't have your camera with you

 digicosmos's gear list:digicosmos's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D7100 Pentax K-5 IIs Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +20 more
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 20,856
Re: each has its pros and cons
1

PerL wrote:

olliess wrote:

PerL wrote:

But when you add a tele the size advantage disappears and becomes an ergonomical disadvantage (using the same sensor size)

"If" you add a tele. For all the rest of the times you choose to walk around with a non-tele, the small camera really is smaller.

I'm also not sure why it's an "ergonomical disadvantage" to have a smaller body, as long as it has a decent handgrip and controls you can still reach with the tele attached. Unless you walk around one-handing your DSLR+tele I guess...

I dont know if you looked at the comparision, but the deeper grip of the DSLR is much more comfortable. These are compact teles (slow 55-200 lenses), with longer/bigger ones the the difference in favour of the DSLR gets bigger.

The grip is only going to be an issue of you plan on just holding the hold set-up with your right hand! In reality, the average user is going to support the weight of the lens with his left hand, with the right hand merely being used to steer the camera, press the shutter, and twiddle camera settings. You also have to keep in mind that the pictured D3200 is about 160 grams heavier (that's 46% heavier!) than the Sony NEX 6. So yes, the DSLR has a larger grip...but if you were only holding the camera with your right hand, it would have to bear more weight! Also keep in mind that the D3200 is *light* for a DSLR. With other DSLRs, you'd have to bear even *more* weight.  So in a way, you could say that the larger grip comes part and parcel with the fact that DSLRs are bigger and heavier, so you need a bigger grip just to compensate for the bigger size and weight of the camera.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
tomtom50 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,244
Re: Why dslr over mirrorless?
1

DSLR entry-level lenses are less expensive.

 tomtom50's gear list:tomtom50's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Alpha NEX-3N Canon EOS M Sony a6000
C.Eaton Contributing Member • Posts: 926
Re: Why mirrorless over dslr?

Ubilam wrote:

Or, vice versa? Please educate me. State the benefits/cons of both ONLY if you have used both types to compare. Thanks!

Easy. Used Canon DSLR's since the 10D right upto the 5D series and they left a dent both in my wallet and shoulder.

A few years ago sold all my Canon gear including half a dozen prime L lenses and jumped on the NEX 5n band wagon, then the NEX 6 ship as mirrorless fever took hold.

Now I actually am enjoying photography again and my lop-sided gait is slowly improving.

RonFrank
RonFrank Senior Member • Posts: 2,130
Mirrorless vs. DSLR.
1

DSLR - Ultimate image machine. The best quality, the fastest focus tracking, the highest quality lenses, the biggest buffers, great flash system, the best weather sealing, the list goes on. It is also large, heavy, and cumbersome to carry around. I own DSLRs and lenses so that is attractive and cheap for me.

Mirrorless - small package with a high quality sensor. But it does not focus on moving subjects well. I took my mirrorless kit to a weekend event and got a high OOF rate which was rather upsetting. Nikon 1 is the exception.

IMO until mirrorless gets the focus down its not worthwhile. OOF shots are annoying and downright unacceptable. From my experience the mirrorless OOF rate is 25%+ which is way too high. It is over 75% if shooting action. I am not someone who does the M focus option well. I have been shooting AF since the 80's!

OTOH if you do mostly landscape mirrorless can work well. For people I found the best way to use mirrorless is to have folks attention when shooting. Take time to lock focus.

The Nikon 1 system maybe my carryall solution. The sensor size and flash are the only drawbacks. Why Nikon did not use their CLS system is just STOOPID!

I am also looking at a NEX as I believe PDAF works well on the NEX5R/6. If the NEX PDAF works that is a good solution. I need to find a NEX6 I can shoot for an hour or so.

I will not purchase another mirrorless that can not do PDAF well. Granted I do not need high speed focus tracking, but a high percentage shot PDAF sensor is a requirement which I believe the NEX can achieve. See the DPReview on the NEX6, it looks good. I have a DSLR for those times when I want an action camera.

 RonFrank's gear list:RonFrank's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D300S Nikon D1X Sony a6000 Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +7 more
vjk2 Regular Member • Posts: 231
Re: each has its pros and cons

Neat website:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#375.90,327.70,ha,t

(I currently have a k30)

Close to same size lengthwise for a 200mm-length zoom

Or how about this?

http://camerasize.com/compact/#327.70,289.95,ha,t

marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Re: The main reason for mirrorless is portability...
1

steelhead3 wrote:

So your saying with upgrade path, the new nex ff will be the end all and dslr will disappear into history. All these cameras are just choice for the consumer, some better than others. Some people like big (me), but that doesn't mean that it is inferior to like small, and that your IQ takes a large hit. Recently bought a nex 7 and have enjoyed very good IQ (better than my 77). AF is not as good (almost the same with adapter and a mount lenses); it certainly doesn't lend itself to hand holding a large lens.

No that's not what I meant, but if there is a NEX FF, DSLRs won't disappear. Why would they? But at least with the NEX system with a FF body sitting at the top of the line, there will be a stronger upgrade path ending with the camera with superb RX1 type IQ.

Some mirrorless systems (most in fact) don't have any choices in high end, pro-level FF cameras.  Someone who buys into F-mount with an APS-C D7100 does have options at the high end should they become more proficient or interested in photography.  Since there is only the RX1 FF mirrorless camera, all other mirrorless systems are more limited as far as upgrade path.  That's all I was saying.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR +7 more
vjk2 Regular Member • Posts: 231
Re: each has its pros and cons
1

Really neat website!

http://j.mp/18YSV9g

(always wanted to compare a Sony NEX vs Olympus PEN)

18-55 yeah the mirrorless are nice and compact. However, I personally *never* use 18-55. My walkaround lenses tend to be 150-200 mm zoom lenses.

which gets you this:

http://j.mp/18YT7p8

(edit: screwed up links).

So wow, when you take into account body size, Sony NEX and Olympus PEN are largely the same size, despite Pen having a smaller sensor + smaller lenses.

But for 200mm (or equivalent) zoom, the size is roughly the same as a DSLR.

Since IMO the annoying part of cameras isn't the weight so much as the bulk.

T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 20,856
Re: SLRs have become big, bloated, heavy, oversized behemoths!

Mike_PEAT wrote:

I realize in the old days oversized dSLRs were an anoying necessity, due to the size of electronics...but today there's no reason for oversized dSLRs...Olympus has shown it is possible to make NORMAL SIZED dSLRs. You may say that Olympus uses smaller sensors and mirrors, but the only difference between that and a full frame is te size of the lens opening!

I had no interest in mirrorless, that is until the Olympus E-M5 came along, because it was so much like the SLRs I had used over 20 years of my photographic history not only in styling, but in size...it was the size and feel of the NORMAL SIZED SLRs I was familiar with!

It's funny though that when a NORMAL SIZED camera like the Olympus E-M5 now comes along, people now say it's too small...they've gotten used to BLOATED cameras.

People's perspectives on sizes change over time.  I, too, now feel that my DSLRs are overly large compared to my mirrorless cameras.  DSLRs still have their place in my life, but I just don't want to carry one anymore when I'm walking out the door to enjoy the weekend.  I grab my m4/3 MILC instead.  If I sling it over my shoulder, it's so light, compact, and unobtrusive.  I feel more like Henri Cartier-Bresson with his stealthy rangefinder.  Or if I throw it in a shoulder bag, I barely even notice it's in there.  The m4/3 lenses are also very light and barely take up any space, too.  The Panny 20/1.7 and Oly 45/1.8 slip into my pockets with no problem.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 13,985
Very interesting

vjk2 wrote:

Really neat website!

http://camerasize.com/compact/#327.70,289.95,ha,t

(always wanted to compare a Sony NEX vs Olympus PEN)

18-55 yeah the mirrorless are nice and compact. However, I personally *never* use 18-55. My walkaround lenses tend to be 150-200 mm zoom lenses.

which gets you this:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#375.90,327.70,289.95,ha,t

As I understand it, the K30 has a rather large OVF?

-- hide signature --
vjk2 Regular Member • Posts: 231
Re: Very interesting

PerL wrote:

vjk2 wrote:

Really neat website!

http://camerasize.com/compact/#327.70,289.95,ha,t

(always wanted to compare a Sony NEX vs Olympus PEN)

18-55 yeah the mirrorless are nice and compact. However, I personally *never* use 18-55. My walkaround lenses tend to be 150-200 mm zoom lenses.

which gets you this:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#375.90,327.70,289.95,ha,t

As I understand it, the K30 has a rather large OVF?

Eh, I guess. I'm actually a little underwhelmed by the OVF.

Liveview, OTOH is *very* impressive on the k30.

btw, I updated the post with better constructed links.

marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
You are dreaming...
2

Sonyshine wrote:

Mirrorless benefits are lightness, constant live view, able to use EVF with info overlay and no clunking mirror vibration.

The main drawback of most mirrorless systems has been slower AF. Nikon seem to have cracked this with their excellent 1 series which have very fast PDF and CDF combined.

It is expected that the next generation of mirrorless cameras from most major manufacturers will finally have very fast AF at which point all cameras will become mirror less.

Moving mirrors will go the way of floppy drives, CRT TV's and VHS tapes.

Nice pipe dream, except for the fact that very few if any mirrorless vendors are selling many cameras these days as DSLRs continue to dominate outselling MILCs by large margins.

Mirror vibration is only an issue at slow shutter speeds around 1/15 with long telephotos.  For most exposure times mirror vibrations have no impact at all on images.

Mirrorless cameras have shutter shock issues which you can read about here on DPR in countless threads.

And as long as professional photographers continue to prefer DSLRs (and OVFs) they aren't going anywhere.  And mirrorless vendors producing crop sensor cameras often for much more money than DSLR systems, meaning amateurs/enthusiasts are going to continue to purchase DSLRs in large numbers.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR +7 more
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 20,856
Re: each has its pros and cons

Rather than just looking at size comparison images on the web, I recommend you go out and handle one in your hand right along side a DSLR.  See it, hold it in your hands, swing it around, imagine carrying around multiple lenses, etc.  For many of us who use both DSLRs and MILCs, the size/weight/bulk differences are obvious, and are not so well conveyed just by looking at size comparison photos on tie web.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
vjk2 Regular Member • Posts: 231
Re: Very interesting

Well, I just compared the K30's OVF to a Nikon D90's OVF. Yeah, it's good, big + brite, plus has all of those great physical buttons and dials.

Sonyshine
Sonyshine Veteran Member • Posts: 8,892
Re: each has its pros and cons

T3 wrote:

Rather than just looking at size comparison images on the web, I recommend you go out and handle one in your hand right along side a DSLR. See it, hold it in your hands, swing it around, imagine carrying around multiple lenses, etc. For many of us who use both DSLRs and MILCs, the size/weight/bulk differences are obvious, and are not so well conveyed just by looking at size comparison photos on tie web.

Not all mirror-less cameras are small - Panasonic GH3 for example and I suspect the trend will be bigger chunkier mirror-less - well it will once all cameras go mirror less - and then designers can play with the camera layout and be a bit radical like Sony did with their Nex7 .

 Sonyshine's gear list:Sonyshine's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II Apple iPhone SE
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads