nightfly
Well-known
Something that's been baffling me a bit lately is the appeal of the new mirrorless cameras from Canon and Nikon.
I had thought that the appeal of mirrorless cameras was that they could be made smaller and lighter than SLRs and loose the big prism bump. Also that you could make smaller and lighter lenses.
However the new Canon and Nikons don't seem to be any less large and bulky than a traditional DSLR and the lenses are simarly larger.
So what are the advantages of it, from a consumer standpoint? I can't imagine that mirror blackout is that big of any issue for anybody really.
I had thought that the appeal of mirrorless cameras was that they could be made smaller and lighter than SLRs and loose the big prism bump. Also that you could make smaller and lighter lenses.
However the new Canon and Nikons don't seem to be any less large and bulky than a traditional DSLR and the lenses are simarly larger.
So what are the advantages of it, from a consumer standpoint? I can't imagine that mirror blackout is that big of any issue for anybody really.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
Well, the lenses are huuuuuuge — particularly if the male buyer has tiny hands, it's some sort of Porsche, BWDIK?
madNbad
Well-known
No mirror slap. There are currently events, like the PGA, that limit when photographs may be taken because of the noise generated by the cameras. Much of it is generated by the flipping up and down of the mirror on an slr. If the companies can reduce the noise, it gives the photographers more opportunities to capture images during the event.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I would say that the biggest appeal of full frame mirrorless cameras is the fact that you can use adapters and fit on a whole slew of lenses that most of us have to varying degrees, from LTM and M lenses to M42 mount lenses to Rokkor SLR lenses and OM Zuikos and Canon FD lenses etc.
These would work fairly well, but some wide angle lenses of various brands would preform poorly on these cameras but at least we get full bokeh impact with a full frame sensor.
These would work fairly well, but some wide angle lenses of various brands would preform poorly on these cameras but at least we get full bokeh impact with a full frame sensor.
retinax
Well-known
This, and: Live view doesn't only allow focusing all these adapted lenses at working apertures, also in low light, it also allows for live histogram, which is very very helpful. For those who use AF lenses and auto everything, I see no big advantage.
bmattock
Veteran
I am not the typical consumer of such things, so I am not the target audience. In other words, I probably can't answer your question correctly. I can only say that I am hoping to be able to purchase a Sony full frame mirrorless camera at some point when the price drops enough so that I can use my old Canon FD and FL mount lenses. That's pretty much it.
Yes, I know I can use a metabones or other type of adapter on a m4/3 or other non-full-frame mirrorless, but I really don't want to do that. So I'm waiting for the full frame prices to drop enough to make me willing to splash out for one.
The bodies are
smaller and the lenses are smaller in most cases.
smaller and the lenses are smaller in most cases.
stompyq
Well-known
I saw and got to use both canon and Nikon mirror-less cameras at PDN. They are significantly smaller than DSLRs and lighter. No mirrorslap. bc they have no mirrorbox the mount can be better designed so the subsequent lenses would be better matched to higher rez sensors. You are in the very small minority that cares about a mirrorbump. The majority of people don't care.
nightfly
Well-known
I don't have a horse in the race. I don't care about the mirror bump per se. Was just wondering about it.
I've only seen them in photos and without any scale they look like the size of DSLRs, if they are smaller and lighter and have other features that people are looking for, that makes sense.
They aren't aimed at me, was just curious what things about them would endear them to their target market.
I've only seen them in photos and without any scale they look like the size of DSLRs, if they are smaller and lighter and have other features that people are looking for, that makes sense.
They aren't aimed at me, was just curious what things about them would endear them to their target market.
KM-25
Well-known
This is the only reason I am getting a Nikon Z6, quiet operation and easy use of the silent mode for the same reason via the electronic VF. I tried a friend's Z7 on a job and the mechanical shutter was quieter than my M10 by quite a bit.
Even though the body is smaller and lighter, when you put on a large-ish S type lens or an F lens via the adapter there really is no size benefit and if anything there is a bit of an ergonomic loss with it to be honest.
I am giving it a try, but no way will it ever replace my DSLRS / Leica M bodies.
Huss
Veteran
Cameras can be too small. My Olympus OMD-EM10mk2 is so tiny I had to add the optional grip to make it more comfortable to use. But the lenses are very small, so it remains balanced.
I find my D850 much more comfortable to use than my Z7, because it is bigger. I have medium sized hands and it just fits perfectly. The Z7, and all it's competitors, are really only comfortable when you add a grip. Which makes it larger.. Z7 does not have a grip at the moment.
Ultimately the deal is they use the same size sensor as the equivalent DSLR, so the lenses will be the same size. Upside for me vs my D850, is that I can use any lens on it with adapters (so it may replace my Leica depending on how well it works with wides), the single point AF absolutely nails focus 100% of the time at 1.4 with my Sigma Art lenses (D850 is about 80%), the incredible EVF (best I've used) which makes manual focus crazy easy even w/o aids, and the ability to see the actual exposure real time is perfect.
I find my D850 much more comfortable to use than my Z7, because it is bigger. I have medium sized hands and it just fits perfectly. The Z7, and all it's competitors, are really only comfortable when you add a grip. Which makes it larger.. Z7 does not have a grip at the moment.
Ultimately the deal is they use the same size sensor as the equivalent DSLR, so the lenses will be the same size. Upside for me vs my D850, is that I can use any lens on it with adapters (so it may replace my Leica depending on how well it works with wides), the single point AF absolutely nails focus 100% of the time at 1.4 with my Sigma Art lenses (D850 is about 80%), the incredible EVF (best I've used) which makes manual focus crazy easy even w/o aids, and the ability to see the actual exposure real time is perfect.
RichC
Well-known
I've given up using optical viewfinders and also SLRs and now use only a mirrorless digital camera - a Sony A7R II. For me, the advantages are massive:
• Getting exactly what I see. No more disappointments - what I see in the viewfinder is the image I get: exposure, colour, contrast, and any problems such as flare and aberrations. The current electronic viewfinders are also clearer and brighter than many optical viewfinders!
• Seeing in the dark. I usually have the viewfinder set to show the brightness of the scene according to the exposure (see above) - but a press of a button overrides this. Night or dark scenes impossible to see in an optical viewfinder are as bright as day!
• In-body image stabilisation (IS). Most camera manufacturers (e.g Canon and Nikon) build this into their lenses. Great, unless like me you only use manual lenses without IS! Most mirrorless cameras have IS in the body, allowing me to handhold at 1/20 s!
• Wide lens choice and flexibility. I now have a massive choice of lenses. For example, I can use tilt-shift with a huge range of focal lengths (and I do!), and if I want a small camera, rather than use my Nikon SLR lenses, I select my rangefinder lenses - I can fit the camera in a (albeit large) coat pocket.
I can't see myself ever using a camera with an optical viewfinder again...
• Getting exactly what I see. No more disappointments - what I see in the viewfinder is the image I get: exposure, colour, contrast, and any problems such as flare and aberrations. The current electronic viewfinders are also clearer and brighter than many optical viewfinders!
• Seeing in the dark. I usually have the viewfinder set to show the brightness of the scene according to the exposure (see above) - but a press of a button overrides this. Night or dark scenes impossible to see in an optical viewfinder are as bright as day!
• In-body image stabilisation (IS). Most camera manufacturers (e.g Canon and Nikon) build this into their lenses. Great, unless like me you only use manual lenses without IS! Most mirrorless cameras have IS in the body, allowing me to handhold at 1/20 s!
• Wide lens choice and flexibility. I now have a massive choice of lenses. For example, I can use tilt-shift with a huge range of focal lengths (and I do!), and if I want a small camera, rather than use my Nikon SLR lenses, I select my rangefinder lenses - I can fit the camera in a (albeit large) coat pocket.
I can't see myself ever using a camera with an optical viewfinder again...
Larry H-L
Well-known
Add to Rich's list:
Magnified focus: zoom into a small area for critical focus.
Focus peaking: areas that are in focus are shown in a bright highlighted color such as yellow, makes fast focusing very easy.
Video focus: you view through the EVF rather than using the rear LCD.
Magnified focus: zoom into a small area for critical focus.
Focus peaking: areas that are in focus are shown in a bright highlighted color such as yellow, makes fast focusing very easy.
Video focus: you view through the EVF rather than using the rear LCD.
kuuan
loves old lenses
Technically the latest and also that bigger means better, possibly that describes the biggest segment of potential buyers
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
+ One less mechanism to break. Less noise.
+ Short flange distance; I can fool around with lots of lenses on my Sony
+ Precise framing (For the first time in the history of photography?)
+ Crop sensor cameras are a lot smaller; FX cameras are slightly smaller, lighter.
+ For macro, much easier to focus, especially with focus-Mag and focus-Highlighting
- EVF sometimes doesn't follow moving scene quickly enough
+ Short flange distance; I can fool around with lots of lenses on my Sony
+ Precise framing (For the first time in the history of photography?)
+ Crop sensor cameras are a lot smaller; FX cameras are slightly smaller, lighter.
+ For macro, much easier to focus, especially with focus-Mag and focus-Highlighting
- EVF sometimes doesn't follow moving scene quickly enough
Dogman
Veteran
The appeal is full frame. And smaller size/lighter weight for bodies and (some) lenses. And no mirror slap. And quieter operation. And EVFs. And lens adaptability. And....
Is that enough?
Is that enough?
peterm1
Veteran
What's the appeal?
It's the appeal of the new. I recall the Seinfeld schtick below about how men hunt and women nest. Its true. Same applies to camera gear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d3diodXKPU
It's the appeal of the new. I recall the Seinfeld schtick below about how men hunt and women nest. Its true. Same applies to camera gear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d3diodXKPU
nightfly
Well-known
Understand the differentiators, thanks.
I wasn't getting what the hype was about but at least I'm clear now.
Appreciate the education.
I wasn't getting what the hype was about but at least I'm clear now.
Appreciate the education.
phaedrus
Member
No advantages for the buyer that I can see. The manufacturer's motivation is clear to me. They are cheaper to produce than cameras with mirror boxes, thus rendering a higher profit. And DSLRs were getting so good, not enough people were buying new ones.