Mirrorless vs The World

[YYV_146]

Would a smart phone be considered a mirrorless camera?

Talking to a friend of mine who works at a camera store, he believes smart phones are changing the camera market.

Rangefinder?

They are, depending on what market he's talking about.

The entry-level point&shoot market is dying, or well, already dead because of smartphones. Even entry level DSLR and large sensor compacts are feeling the heat. The average joe doesn't need a DSLR or a large sensor - his phone is good enough, as of 2014, to shoot whatever he likes with passable results.

There's no doubt that the cheapest mirrorless camera (the Pentax Q line aside) will absolutely floor any smartphone when it comes to image quality. The question is, will enough people care for the camera maker to earn money? And that's why all the tradition big camera names (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus) are posting losses year after year. Because they haven't found the formula to convince the masses to pay for a separate camera.

 

[willie_901]

I can't think of a single reason to use a DSLR. I do own three APS-C mirror-less cameras – and one of these has an OVF. However some DSLR's with 24 X 36 mm sensors are a better choice in certain situations.

In the case of action DSLR's have real advantages. Compared to current implementations of contrast-detection AF, state-of-the-art phase-detection AF delivers superior speed and real-time AF tracking. DSLR's have larger, heavier batteries so their maximum burst speed degrades more slowly. And DSLR's avoid EVF lag.

If I was keen on action photography I'd still own a DSLR. It's not that non-DSLR's can't do action photography. After all, skilled photographers sold action shots before DSLR's existed. It's just that some DSLR's make life easier.

DSLR's with 24 X 36 mm sensors also enjoy another advantage over APS-C mirror-less cameras. They can achieve the highest possible level of subject isolation without compromising perspective. When you stand in the same place, an adapted f 0.95 lens with an APS-C sensor has a narrower field-of-view compared to a 24 X 36 mm sensor, so you have to stand further away. In other words, who owns a 35/0.95 lens? I don't rely on extreme subject isolation in my work. This is not a handicap for me.

At this time DSLR's have more sophisticated flash systems. And there are more third-party vendors who market products compatible with these systems. For about five years I have only done manual flash photography. But those who require flexible, diverse TTL flash capabilities are better off with a DSLR.

I can't imagine owning a DSLR again.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

....Personally the EVF makes a lot more sense if you care about the results more than the picture-making process...

So those with OVF according to you don't care about results?
Personally, it smells like a Bad Sushi.

 

[Bill Clark]

My first real digital camera is a Fuji S-7000. it's called I believe, a digicam. It is mirrorless, has both a CF and XD card slots, video and RAW file capture that I can work in Photoshop. That was way back in 2004!

It still works great and the chip and software capture with beautiful vibrant colors!

When I first started using it for gigs, I gradually eased my way using it as I would take my trusty Hasselblad stuff, then on a tripod I made a few images with the Fuji. Then, as time went on and my confidence increased, the digital gained strength and used as my primary camera, the Hasselblad went on to a shelf.

Found this review from January 2004:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms7000

 

[YYV_146]

So those with OVF according to you don't care about results?
Personally, it smells like a Bad Sushi.

You misinterpret me. What I mean is that while the OVF puts you in proximity with the subject, the EVF does the same with the product. If you care about how "close" you are, metaphorically, to the subject being captured, the OVF is the better choice. But if you don't mind staring into a miniature TV screen, the EVF gives you unlimited live preview of the resulting image.

I have come to value the ability to compose absolutely precisely, preview exposure and white balance and confirm things such as highlight information loss while I am making the image. It makes my pictures better; I don't lose frames because the camera metered or focused on the wrong thing. You simply can't do all of that with any OVF - is that bad sushi?

 

[goo0h]

Personally the EVF makes a lot more sense if you care about the results more than the picture-making process. It becomes trivial to fine-control the shooting parameters as you focus - as long as I'm not in a huge hurry, I never miss exposure or focus with an EVF. If I do, I immediately know and take another shot.

Actually, while using the A7r, I felt the EVF was very analogous to using a rangefinder because for the most part, at least more than with a (D)SLR, I could keep shooting and never lose slight of the subject. I could check the results if I wanted to or just keep shooting.

I enjoyed briefly borrowing a friends Canon DSLR, and could probably live with it. However, the A7 just seemed a lot more natural to me, and only slightly a transition from using my rangefinder film cameras. Obviously, though, this is very personal and subjective.

 

[kuuan]

I like old lenses and manual focus and, as I carry my camera almost everytime I go out and travel a lot, I want my gear to be small and lightweight. In short, ever since I had lost fear of an EVF after using - what now feels ages ago - a Konica Minolta A2, mirrorless cameras are exactly what I have been anticipating and hoping for.
My ideal model does not yet exist, maybe never will, but many existing models come close enough and even surpass some of my imaginations and expectations from 'then', e.g. the quality of the EVFs and the manual focus aids.

Ok, mainstream wants AF, so let's take away the advantage of the short register distance that makes pretty much any lens adaptable and the manual focus aids. AF of a dSLR is still be better for action and sport photography, but how much better, how many user really do need that, and the mirrorless are catching up.

I believe it is just a question of time until customers realize that a mirrorless camera offers the same performance as a dSLR in a smaller package and most likely for less money, that mirrorless will outsale dSLRs.

 

[Spanik]

I have come to value the ability to compose absolutely precisely, preview exposure and white balance and confirm things such as highlight information loss while I am making the image. It makes my pictures better; I don't lose frames because the camera metered or focused on the wrong thing. You simply can't do all of that with any OVF - is that bad sushi?

I have yet to see an lcd screen on a camera that can let you evaluate the parameters you mention wih enough certainty to make a decision. Colour rendition is too dependent on the ambient light, resolution pales compared to what the sensor sees, even just evaluating focus means messing with enlargement and scrolling around the screen. Rarely there is any correspondence between the colours you see on the screen/evf and what you see later on the monitor.

 

[YYV_146]

I have yet to see an lcd screen on a camera that can let you evaluate the parameters you mention wih enough certainty to make a decision. Colour rendition is too dependent on the ambient light, resolution pales compared to what the sensor sees, even just evaluating focus means messing with enlargement and scrolling around the screen. Rarely there is any correspondence between the colours you see on the screen/evf and what you see later on the monitor.

With a bit of practice I can nail focus by judging the peaking outlines, or simply looking through the EVF. I also know because I use manual focus lenses, and can know where I'm focused at by the position of the focus tab. Sufficient to say, focus has not been a problem. I don't need AF to track moving objects; it is entirely possible to manual focus and nail more than half of a 5-frame burst.

You can calibrate the EVF's white balance to correspond to your monitor. I have done this, and I regularly use manual white balance when I care about how processing I need in post.

Anyways, these are moot points in the days of digital. The electronic level, the zebra lines which indicated highlight blowouts, and the correspondence between exposure compensation and what I see in the EVF; these are godsends, and the reasons I will never go back to an OVF camera for shooting events.

Edit: I would like to add that the best EVFs are a fair bit better than the best LCD screens...

 

[marcr1230]

I sold my D800 last week
I'm traveling this week and have the E-M1 and the X100s.
For my needs theses more than fit the bill
The X100s OVF/EVF is spectacular, the camera is a joy to use and results gorgeous
It has its sweet spot and then there are situations and conditions where the E-M1 rules.
DSLR - I only need for action sports.
What was the question again?

 

[kxl]

I think mirrorless cameras are the duct tape of photography. You always gotta have it around the house and you always gotta have it in your bag when you travel. It won't fix everything, but it will take care of most things.

 

[MCTuomey]

mirrorless vs dSLR?

it depends on what I shoot and under what conditions. no mirrorless can replace my 1-series canon and 400 f/2.8 for sports. but i no longer need a dSLR for events, portraits, products (my TSEs can be adapted), although i'm invested in enough canon glass not to sell out of canon yet.

if i could have only one camera system it'd still be dSLR-based because it can do so many things so well ... except be light and small.

 

[Michael Markey]

mirrorless vs dSLR?

it depends on what I shoot and under what conditions.

if i could have only one camera system it'd still be dSLR-based because it can do so many things so well ... except be light and small.

I would agree with that assessment .
For years I covered action sports in the gloom of an English winter without a DSLR.

It might be fun and you may be traveling light but it certainly isn`t a solution.

I`m selling my DSLR because I do like to travel light but the consequence of that is I`m limited in terms of what I can shoot.

 

[icebear]

For 90% of pictures taken today a mirrorless is just fine, for maybe 80% of pictures taken even a cellphone is doing fine.
This is covering mass market. It's about sharing in today's social networks. Most of people don't even post process any of their pictures.

Today is a digital world, no doubt about that and if you care about a certain shooting experience (talking pictures here, not Uzzi:bang: !!!) and you are used to the RF experience, then sadly there is only one game in town and it darn expensive to get access.

 

[Pablito]

Mirrorless don't have what I have with DSLR. Fast AF, OVF combined with affordable, bugs free FF and most of them have high ISO which sucks.
.

uhhh.... no.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
I have come to value the ability to compose absolutely precisely, preview exposure and white balance and confirm things such as highlight information loss while I am making the image. It makes my pictures better; I don't lose frames because the camera metered or focused on the wrong thing. You simply can't do all of that with any OVF - is that bad sushi?

It is brutally bad sushi.

So bad, it seems you aren't confident with your cameras results, if you have to preview them constantly.
I don't. As long as the light source is the same and amount of light doesn't change from very bright to very dark I don't have to deal with WB and AE in my cameras.
All I do after event is checking my pictures at the monitor, not a tv you have mentioned, which isn't professional way for QC.
With the monitor and good video card all I have to do with my 400 pictures is to delete two, three OOF, crop some of them slightly, and most of the time here is nothing to do with exposure and WB. If I have to, I apply batch editing because my cameras gives me very consistent results.

What a mess and waste of time on the field and in front of the monitor it will be if I do cook my pictures as you do. Changing WB constantly

 

[willie_901]

You misinterpret me. What I mean is that while the OVF puts you in proximity with the subject, the EVF does the same with the product. If you care about how "close" you are, metaphorically, to the subject being captured, the OVF is the better choice. But if you don't mind staring into a miniature TV screen, the EVF gives you unlimited live preview of the resulting image.

I have come to value the ability to compose absolutely precisely, preview exposure and white balance and confirm things such as highlight information loss while I am making the image. It makes my pictures better; I don't lose frames because the camera metered or focused on the wrong thing. You simply can't do all of that with any OVF - is that bad sushi?

I use an EVF often. I have no feeling whatsoever viewing the frame with an EVF has any advantage for evaluating the detailed information about the final result. It is a low-quality preview that only estimates the final result. By low quality I don't mean the EVF flickers, has lag, is uncomfortable or causes visual fatigue. The EVF uses JPEG rendering which means highlights, contrast, WB, etc are not representative of the raw data.

I prefer using the OVF. There are no gain issues in low light (degraded EVF image), the display doesn't flicker in flourescent light, I can operate the camera with essentially shutter lag and I can see what's going on outside the frame (for all but my 14 mm lens).

Sometimes an EVF works best and other times and OVF works best. I would rather have access to both with the same camera than just have one or the other.

 

[Solinar]

For 90% of pictures taken today a mirrorless is just fine, for maybe 80% of pictures taken even a cellphone is doing fine.

That's mainly what I see when I'm in a crowd at a music or cultural event.

Touch screen menus and camera controls aren't my cup of tea - but they are definitely in widespread use.

 

[Mike-D]

I've been using a mirrorless for a few months now and love it. The only disadvantage I see over a DSLR is that the autofocus is a little slower. The advantage is that I actually like carrying it. I hated dragging the SLR out.

The EVF just works. You don't even notice it after a while. It allows me to use all my old RF glass. The high ISO capability is really awesome these days. It allows me to do things with these lenses that I never could with film, or my old DSLR.

 

[YYV_146]

It is brutally bad sushi.

So bad, it seems you aren't confident with your cameras results, if you have to preview them constantly.
I don't. As long as the light source is the same and amount of light doesn't change from very bright to very dark I don't have to deal with WB and AE in my cameras.

What I am not confident with is camera automation. I do not like it when the camera meters for me and chooses a brightness or white balance. If it has to be done, it has to be done. But given the chance I prefer control over these parameters myself - even if it means losing the proximity to the actual object myself.

If you shoot concerts - or any event that goes between the outdoor and indoor, you will know what I say when I say the camera meter cannot be trusted. I've used high-end DSLRs, such as the Canon 1D series and the Nikon D4. I do not trust these cameras, at least not as much as my own eyes.

All I do after event is checking my pictures at the monitor, not a tv you have mentioned, which isn't professional way for QC.
With the monitor and good video card all I have to do with my 400 pictures is to delete two, three OOF, crop some of them slightly, and most of the time here is nothing to do with exposure and WB. If I have to, I apply batch editing because my cameras gives me very consistent results.

What a mess and waste of time on the field and in front of the monitor it will be if I do cook my pictures as you do. Changing WB constantly

Well, you must be a vastly better photographer than I am

If I shoot 400 photos for an event, the most keepers I get is 10-20. I open each image in Photoshop, very carefully tweak the parameters, remove the unwanted elements, dodge and burn digitally with a wacom, and then do a sharpen mask for internet display or unsharpen mask for printing. The process takes anywhere from 10 minutes to a few hours, closer to the latter if I'm dealing with a portrait and need to do bi-channel smoothing.

Working on 400 photos, for me, is a time commitment of more than 4,000 minutes - I doubt if I've worked on this many in the year 2014. Keeping 15 photos from an event I shoot for myself is a huge commitment. I usually only process more for weddings.

So please, don't lecture me on looking at pictures on a monitor. I have a very nice monitor, one that actually exceeds ARGB space. I also have a backup monitor perfectly calibrated for SRGB, which I check output for internet displays.

What a mess and waste of time on the field and in front of the monitor it will be if I do cook my pictures as you do. Changing WB constantly

Yes, I "cook" my photos. We have different views as far as processing goes, and I have nothing but respect for people who, like you, take a more minimal approach.

But I like to go for the maximal instead of the minimal. I believe that no matter how much post process I do to a photo, it will not detract from the artistic quality or the meaning of it. I don't do pixel shifts for reportage, but for everything else - landscapes, macro, portraits - everything in the books is fair game.

So excuse me if I absolutely need a tool to allow me to get the most of a photo in post. This means controlling for highlight/shadow room, getting WB into the right ballpark, and precise framing of the object. So tell me this - imagine for a moment that you spent half an hour trying to squeeze the last bit of dynamic range out of your shot, would my original point still sound like bad sushi?