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
nofumble
Senior Member
the B&W display shows tiny little icon that I can't read without glass. In the Mirrorless, all of that info is inside the EVF, much more convenience.
Goethe
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,511
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,239
No. It produces a better experience.
Khun_K
Senior Member
Nothing really improves photography result except the photographer himself and his imagination.
Mirrorless is simply a logical development of the digital technology advancement. The purpose of viewfinder is basically for framing so optical viewfinder or rangefinder viewfinder is developed when technology only allows such things in such time, until other options become available. The digital mirrorless is not available if the sensor cannot provide live view, and when live view became available the EVF is just a matter of time.
And of course, electronic development is heavily capital based and continue to develop further is what investors wanted to get the next edge over competitor, and so on, and so on. And electronic approach can be adapted better for automatic production, and less parts and automation resulted more effective cost - not necessary to reflect on the marketed price because market price is really base on how much the brand of product can claim for - and make as much profit as possible to continue to push better funding for next development - so - to become more dominant and higher market capital. The classic reflex camera is nothing wrong except it cannot benefit the most from the latest technology and its price is common sense.
The point is camera was photography tool in the past, and camera today is consumer electronics.
All of this is "in real life". Are you implying that EVF is not "in real life"? LOL. An OVF projects an image onto a piece of etched plastic:
Meanwhile, a mirrorless camera projects the image onto an electronic screen:
Whether you're looking into an OVF or an EVF, in both cases you're looking at an image on a screen in real time, in real life.
Last edited:
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 17,298
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
The point is that the EVF is a screen--it looks like a screen and you can tell it's a screen. A look at my gear list will tell you that I don't have a particular side in this matter--I have cameras with an OVF, EVF, and no eye level finder at all. I use and enjoy all of them. (And frankly, if you don't recognize the output of specific lenses or have a good eye for the particular quirks of a Fuji jpeg, you can't tell which camera I used to take which photograph.)
But what keeps me from abandoning the DSLR entirely, beside some Pentax lenses I like a lot and don't want/can't afford to replace, is the simple fact that I sometines just get so tired of looking at that screen. The changes in what I see as I tweak the camera, that very wisywg effect I like so much when I'm in the mood for the EVF, starts to get on my nerves, and it's so much calmer to just look out through the lens and trust the camera, my knowledge, and a bit of chimping to get me what I want. The EVF can make me jittery. It's sometimes just too much. And the way it flickers under fluorescent light? Ugh.
But what keeps me from abandoning the DSLR entirely, beside some Pentax lenses I like a lot and don't want/can't afford to replace, is the simple fact that I sometines just get so tired of looking at that screen. The changes in what I see as I tweak the camera, that very wisywg effect I like so much when I'm in the mood for the EVF, starts to get on my nerves, and it's so much calmer to just look out through the lens and trust the camera, my knowledge, and a bit of chimping to get me what I want. The EVF can make me jittery. It's sometimes just too much. And the way it flickers under fluorescent light? Ugh.
Last edited:
In some circumstances it does. It's easier to avoid any vibration, for instance when taking pictures through a microscope. My original reason for buying a mirrorless camera was the Electronic First Curtain shutter.
The other big advantage of mirrorless cameras is that you can use a vast range of interesting lenses with adapters. That may sometimes give a "better" result.
biza43
Forum Pro
No.
Max Iso
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,897
- Reaction score
- 10,214
Depends on what shortcomings you are having with a camera. For the most part, if you are tracking motion, especially with longer glass, ML is not better. Some bodies are catching up but most ML bodies are still poor at C-AF. On the other hand most ML are far better at not being conspicuous as they tend to be smaller and most offer full silent modes. You can also buy "ML" in smaller formats than apsc/FF DSLRs such as MFT or 1", further shrinking the kit.
IQ won't be too different as that's a sensor/lens issue rather than a mirror issue, although ML can sometimes offer sharper shots with less internal vibration. There are good and bad on both sides, which will benefit you is completely subjective. I miss the C-AF and battery life of a DSLR, but i love the silent mode and lack of AF calibration with ML.
I've thought about keeping both but i don't want to pay for two systems at the moment. That could very well change in the future. Others won't have need for both. It's all subjective.
Maybe, if you have time to allow the system to attain perfect focus and that is critical.
Maybe not if you are shooting something that mirrorless can't keep up with so well.
Even my several-year-old Canon 7D has a lot of info in the viewfinder. The top LCD is just for convenience.
Last edited:
Mackiesback
Forum Pro
Click bait. We have a million of these threads.
NowHearThis
Veteran Member
I noticed you said a "better result", not better image quality. I applaud you for this, but I don't think you understand why what you said was more important...so I'll explain it to you.
Better results are less about the gear and more about the skill of the photographer. I've seen people who buy expensive gear and then shoot the most uninteresting, poorly composed, (sometimes poorly lit) shots - oh yes the shots were sharp and crisp, the focus was dead on so technically they had good image quality, but the results were poor. Conversely I know people who have, what many would consider inferior gear, yet they take great photos with great results and are well paid for it.
So to answer your question: "Does mirrorless produce a better result?" The answer is no. Either YOU will or YOU won't.
Depends on which mirrorless you're talking about. The latest on-sensor mirrorless AF systems are as fast as DSLR PDAF, but they cover a much wider area of the frame. The AF system of the Sony A9 is as fast, or faster than the D5. And supposedly the A9's AF system is coming to the next A7 III. The days of supposedly slower mirrorless AF are quickly coming to an end. On-sensor AF is rapidly maturing. Even Canon's latest Dual Pixel Live View AF (like in the 6D II) is at least as fast as its OVF PDAF focus system-- but it covers a much wider focus area.
There are certainly a lot of features in cameras that can definitely assist you in getting better results. For example, face AF has certainly helped me get better results because it is able to track a subject's face through the frame across multiple shots, without losing focus. That definitely results in better results. Likewise, being able to have real-time exposure simulation and a histogram in the viewfinder also helps me get better (exposure) results (especially if you are shooting Expose-To-The-Right). Many mirrorless cameras now offer IBIS which also helps get better results with handholding and camera shake. I also like to use my EVF in black-and-white mode, which allows me to see the world a little more abstractly, so I can concentrate on lines, patterns, shapes, textures, etc, which really helps me get better compositional results. All of these features definitely assist me in getting better results compared to my DSLR gear. That doesn't mean I didn't get good results with my DSLR. It's just that the additional features of mirrorless allow me to get better results more consistently and more easily-- in other words, better.
bjn70
Veteran Member
Looking through a DSLR's OVF isn't really quite like looking through a window. What you're really looking at is an image projected onto a piece of etched plastic-- aka the focusing screen.
If you really want that "looking out a window" experience, try using a rangefinder camera instead. That's really looking out a window.
A DSLR's viewfinder only gives the illusion of looking out a window. But what you're really looking at is a screen-- the focusing screen.
Last edited:
Looking through window ≠ looking through OVF.
OVF uses ground glass. It is a bit like looking at an image from a projector. Rangefinder is much more real.
Edit: T3, great minds think alike...
Last edited:
bjn70
Veteran Member
Why mirrorless?
I think the main reason is to be different.
When I bought my first camera I knew that Canon and Nikon made the best cameras but for some reason I didn't think I was ready for the absolute best so I bought a Canon. But a few years later I decided I was ready so I sold that camera and bought a Nikon. A few years ago I wanted a good TV so I bought a Sony. I didn't consider trying to buy a Canon or Nikon TV because I knew that Sony made a better TV. Just like I didn't consider buying a Sony camera because I knew that Canon and Nikon made better cameras.
I bought my camera from a camera company, my TV from a TV company, my computer from a computer company, my car from a car company, and so on.
But some people don't want to be part of the crowd, they want to be different. So they look for something to buy other than Canon and Nikon. I see this happening in all kinds of other product categories.
I think the main reason is to be different.
When I bought my first camera I knew that Canon and Nikon made the best cameras but for some reason I didn't think I was ready for the absolute best so I bought a Canon. But a few years later I decided I was ready so I sold that camera and bought a Nikon. A few years ago I wanted a good TV so I bought a Sony. I didn't consider trying to buy a Canon or Nikon TV because I knew that Sony made a better TV. Just like I didn't consider buying a Sony camera because I knew that Canon and Nikon made better cameras.
I bought my camera from a camera company, my TV from a TV company, my computer from a computer company, my car from a car company, and so on.
But some people don't want to be part of the crowd, they want to be different. So they look for something to buy other than Canon and Nikon. I see this happening in all kinds of other product categories.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum