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
G
greg 123
Guest
You are comparing a pro M43 to a beginners Canon Rebel. The EM1ii mops the floor with that Canon toy. Did you think DPR readers are that ignorant? LOLjustmeMN said:
Last edited:
Why mirrorless?
Because Fuji doesn't currently manufacture a DSLR.
Now I know that sounds like a silly answer but in my case, it's probably the main reason I use a mirrorless camera.
Since way back in the film days I've always used Canon SLRs and then Canon DSLRs. I have nothing negative to say about Canon, their lenses, accessories or support system but a few years ago decided to try mirrorless, more out of curiosity than anything else.
I originally bought the top-of-the--line Olympus along with one prime lens but decided it wasn't right for me and then bought the top rated Sony along with a couple of lenses and almost hated that camera (just a personal opinion).
Sold both cameras, at a big loss, and decided mirrorless wasn't right for me and that I'd stick with a DSLR for the rest of my life.
A friend of mine who owns a camera store told me he had what amounted to a brand new Fuji X-E1 and a 35mm 1.4 Fuji lens that a customer had returned after only two days of use.
He told me to use it and if I liked it he would sell it to me for what he had into the camera.
Have to admit I was impressed with that camera/lens and have never regretted "switching" to Fuji and their lenses. I put the word switching in parenthesis because I do still own a Canon DSLR but primarily use Fuji cameras.
When it comes to image quality I like both systems and don't see much difference when it comes to processed raw images although processing the Fuji X-Trans files is a little different than the Canon files.
Fuji JPEG files are some of the best I've seen and probably a little better than the Canon's but again, that's just a matter of personal opinion.
When you come right down to it, there's no difference in image quality between a mirrorless camera and a DSLR that have the same size sensors.
Both systems are good but neither is perfect for everything and I really don't understand why so many people seem to be "against" one system or the other.
Because Fuji doesn't currently manufacture a DSLR.
Now I know that sounds like a silly answer but in my case, it's probably the main reason I use a mirrorless camera.
Since way back in the film days I've always used Canon SLRs and then Canon DSLRs. I have nothing negative to say about Canon, their lenses, accessories or support system but a few years ago decided to try mirrorless, more out of curiosity than anything else.
I originally bought the top-of-the--line Olympus along with one prime lens but decided it wasn't right for me and then bought the top rated Sony along with a couple of lenses and almost hated that camera (just a personal opinion).
Sold both cameras, at a big loss, and decided mirrorless wasn't right for me and that I'd stick with a DSLR for the rest of my life.
A friend of mine who owns a camera store told me he had what amounted to a brand new Fuji X-E1 and a 35mm 1.4 Fuji lens that a customer had returned after only two days of use.
He told me to use it and if I liked it he would sell it to me for what he had into the camera.
Have to admit I was impressed with that camera/lens and have never regretted "switching" to Fuji and their lenses. I put the word switching in parenthesis because I do still own a Canon DSLR but primarily use Fuji cameras.
When it comes to image quality I like both systems and don't see much difference when it comes to processed raw images although processing the Fuji X-Trans files is a little different than the Canon files.
Fuji JPEG files are some of the best I've seen and probably a little better than the Canon's but again, that's just a matter of personal opinion.
When you come right down to it, there's no difference in image quality between a mirrorless camera and a DSLR that have the same size sensors.
Both systems are good but neither is perfect for everything and I really don't understand why so many people seem to be "against" one system or the other.
drj3
Forum Pro
Now put a lens on each with a FF equivalent field of view of 800mm and compare sizes.
--
drj3
G
greg 123
Guest
The image isn't recorded unless using pro capture mode on the EM1ii. Pro capture allows you to get a burst of images that happened just before you pressed the shutter button. That is an awesome benefit.
In normal use, not a recorded image, you also get a big benefit. You get to immediately see what the result will be when the shutter button is pressed. In addition you get to see the exposure plus highlight and shadow blinkies. This makes it much faster to set exposure compensation for optimum exposure without chimping. When other people are waiting it's not considerate to be looking at the rear screen to see if the exposure compensation was optimum and then take another image. Often the rear LCD is just too hard to see with reflections of the sun.
Last edited:
Mackiesback
Forum Pro
No more ridiculous than the previous comparison.....
G
greg 123
Guest
Nope. The previous FF vs mirrorless is realistic. That is what it feels like when you dump a D810, get a mirrorless and see no drop in results.
We all do it differently. I keep the rear lcd closed and turned in toward the body. I can wait till I get home to look at my images. Used film too long I suppose. I can't tell anything about my pictures on the little ole camera screen. Even if I could tell much about them on the lcd, I could not take that photo again - that point in time is gone, no use worrying about the photo I took of it. Best to concentrate on new things that are happening instead of fretting over the bygone.
Mackiesback
Forum Pro
Yeah, its super realistic if you are willing to cut your sensor size to a fraction of FF. Most people dont, unless they are willing to compromise in other areas than weight.
G
greg 123
Guest
Unless shooting very large prints or need to shoot motion in low light FF sensor size has minimal advantage over some M43 mirrorless cameras. With stationary low light compositions an EM1ii with Synch-IS will do just as well or sometimes better than D810. Shooting at with a much slower shutter speed due to 5 to 6 stops advantage takes away the sensor size advantage. Plus you get all the other advantages come with an EVF.
Last edited:
Erick L
Senior Member
And other than lag, that matters because...?
DenWil
Veteran Member
No. But it offers to folks who cannot perform with a DSLR an exit strategy.
The key here is have you ever had someone who tossed their D810 or 1DX and came back with the images they were able to shoot with that $3000 Alpha and specifically point out the how and the where within those new images that made them possible, technically better or more commercially marketable than images taken with the hulking slapping mirror behemoth they dispensed with?
I have never.
G
greg 123
Guest
LOL. There are only a few special skills to use a DSLR instead of a mirrorless; more muscle and a hard head keep going as always.
bjn70
Veteran Member
So the mirrorless camera has a more perfect metering system? How does a mirror negatively affect the metering system?
bjn70
Veteran Member
This is what I have trouble understanding. We have some very good DSLRS with APS-C sized sensors, and people talk about how much better the image quality is with a full frame sensor. So you get a micro-4/3 size sensor that is much smaller than the APS-C sensor and it jumps beyond the APS-C sensor and magically has image quality equal to a full frame?
I've yet to see how putting a tiny TV on top of a camera is an advantage.
G
greg 123
Guest
It doesn't. It allows taking a better first shot because of the tools right in the viewfinder enable an optimum exposure to be quickly set on the first shot. With high dynamic range or uneven lighting this is a big benefit. For those who blindly trust their metering without worry for exposure compensation there wouldn't be much benefit.
G
greg 123
Guest
Take a look at what 5 to 6.5 stops advantage due to IBIS will allow for your exposure. There is very little advantage in any case with 24MP FF except for motion shots. At 36MP FF there's the ability to crop more heavily and the ability to print at much larger sizes than most people need.
This has been explained. Unfortunately you haven't been able to comprehend some rather basic advantages.
Mackiesback
Forum Pro
Its just tired evangelism. Never is mentioned the 4 stops from quality VR lenses.
bjn70
Veteran Member
You likely have a much smaller camera in your pocket already, and it probably doesn't have an OVF either.
I think a digital camera without mirror and prism could be made very small if a person wanted to. You need a sensor which is relatively small and flat, some circuit boards, and a battery. This could probably be reduced to just a little box that stuck on the end of the lens. But it would have limited battery life like the current problems I've seen in recent mirrorless camera reviews. The biggest problem would be nothing to hold onto while you use it, you would essentially be holding onto the barrel of the lens. Nikon (and possibly Canon) have made some really small DSLRs that suffered from being hard to hold onto while you use them. So DSLRs were made bigger so they were easier to use. The little camera posted in the photo looks like it would be hard to hold, but might make a good travel camera when you really need something small.
Long ago I used a full size film SLR, a Canon FT. Then smaller cameras came out such as the Olympus OM-1 and Nikon FE. I bought the FE- not quite as small as the OM-1 but still smaller than what we were used to. I carried it for about 25 years, mostly with a small 28-50 zoom lens. From there to a DSLR I didn't worry about the increased size of the body. But mostly what I've noticed is that the lenses have grown, a lot. My 28-50 was very small, a current 28-70 is very much larger. So a camera body is now a bit larger, but the current lens is 4 times as big. I've seen photos of the Sony mirrorless with large lenses on it, i.e. the current lenses for the higher IQ mirrorless cameras seem just as big as the lenses for DSLRs, so there isn't any size savings there.
I think a digital camera without mirror and prism could be made very small if a person wanted to. You need a sensor which is relatively small and flat, some circuit boards, and a battery. This could probably be reduced to just a little box that stuck on the end of the lens. But it would have limited battery life like the current problems I've seen in recent mirrorless camera reviews. The biggest problem would be nothing to hold onto while you use it, you would essentially be holding onto the barrel of the lens. Nikon (and possibly Canon) have made some really small DSLRs that suffered from being hard to hold onto while you use them. So DSLRs were made bigger so they were easier to use. The little camera posted in the photo looks like it would be hard to hold, but might make a good travel camera when you really need something small.
Long ago I used a full size film SLR, a Canon FT. Then smaller cameras came out such as the Olympus OM-1 and Nikon FE. I bought the FE- not quite as small as the OM-1 but still smaller than what we were used to. I carried it for about 25 years, mostly with a small 28-50 zoom lens. From there to a DSLR I didn't worry about the increased size of the body. But mostly what I've noticed is that the lenses have grown, a lot. My 28-50 was very small, a current 28-70 is very much larger. So a camera body is now a bit larger, but the current lens is 4 times as big. I've seen photos of the Sony mirrorless with large lenses on it, i.e. the current lenses for the higher IQ mirrorless cameras seem just as big as the lenses for DSLRs, so there isn't any size savings there.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum