What's the appeal of new mirrorless cameras?

[Dogman]

My friend has had trouble with dust, a lot of trouble.

When I had my home darkroom, I had lots of trouble with dust on negatives. When I scanned film, I also had trouble with dust. I have a lot less trouble with dust on sensors.

Batteries last a pretty long time if you don't machine gun every shot you make. Besides, you can easily carry a spare or two. They're small.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

. Besides, you can easily carry a spare or two. They're small.

They're too small, that's the problem.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Hi Larry

I'm kinda the last person to ask that question as I minimally process my files! And I really only use these cameras to scan film - but once my Leica adapter arrives for the Z7, I may actually use it as a camera!

This thread may answer your questions though:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1570123

Thanks, Huss.

 

[vladimir]

I am using Leica SL, fantastic EVF easily and precisely to focus manual lenses and great 24-90mm zoom. I would never go back to that ancient rangefinder system that goes out of alignment.

 

[Dwig]

No, dear Murray,
exactly the opposite is true! Have a look how much more complicated the most recent 1.8/50mm lens formulas for the new full-frame MILCs are —— they're Retrofocus! Hence the increased size, weight and bulk...

Nope, they are not truly "retrofocus". Instead, they are telecentric, or at least partially so. This does result in rather complex optical designs, but it eliminates, or at least massively reduces, the issues with sensor caused image faults at the edges.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

My friend has had trouble with dust, a lot of trouble.

I don't know about my friends, but I've never had issues with dust on mirrorless sensors. Perhaps Olympus' dust reduction tech works?

 

[colker]

When I had my home darkroom, I had lots of trouble with dust on negatives. When I scanned film, I also had trouble with dust. I have a lot less trouble with dust on sensors.

Batteries last a pretty long time if you don't machine gun every shot you make. Besides, you can easily carry a spare or two. They're small.

Those new cameras are wonderfull. DSLRs make your ass look too big.

 

[ebolton]

I've been experimenting with an Oly Pen-F. It's similar to my Canon G11, with an EVF instead of a teeny OVF, an interchangeable lens, and a crapload more megapixels. At this point, I kind of prefer the Canon, but the Oly is growing on me. The OK EVF is a whole lot better than a teensy OVF. I like having the camera parameters visible in the VF. Subjectively, the Canon feels more durable than the Oly. I think the technology is better in the Oly mirrorless camera, and it may eventually displace the G11 if it holds up, but I'm not giving up my SLR for it.


-Ed

 

[dmr]

I've been using a Fuji HS30 mirrorless since 2013 as my main digital. It's light and quick and for the most part performs nicely except I've hit its limits. For prints larger than 8x10 the image quality just isn't there. The images are kinda rough when enlarged more, and yes, I know the small sensor is the main reason.

I very recently picked up a X-T10 and that's similar but has much better image quality at the sizes I like to print.

I like the size and weight. Many of the new DSLRs are heavy and have a "standard" lens about the size of a peanut butter jar.

I need a viewfinder. I just can't compose holding out a camera in front of me and trying to do it on a screen.

No mirror slap! 🙂

Now I know this thread is mostly about the new full frame mirrorless cameras, so I'm assuming that the weight and size issue, including the size of the lenses for those cameras, will be there, at least to an extent.

 

[Tati]

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.

It's true. The weight of the z6/z7 is close to the D750 I have thought about buying for years now. I have put it off because of the shutter problems I read so much about over the years. Also, I wanted a quieter shutter. I rented one in 2015.

For me, the z6 offers that quiet shutter or silent shutter. It is only slightly less for weight with the adapter, maybe 100 grams. Not enough to make a difference. I prefer using a tilt/swivel lcd to compose on. I've always found view finders sub optimal for me. Wish the z's had full swivel lcd's and not just tilt. The d750 has a tilt screen but live view is very slow.

But the z6 has ibis. I also don't have to worry about auto focus fine tune. Focus with the mirror-less body should be spot on.

I have nikon lenses I could use with the z6 via adapter. The body is smaller than the d750. I have read that auto focus in low light can hunt. I would have to check that out.

24mp is plenty for me. I don't need 45mp. Besides, I feel the z7 should have 2 card slots, back lit buttons, better auto focus, etc. for the price nikon is asking...

so, some reasons why I am thinking about a full frame nikon z6. Oh, I also wish nikon would do a pancake 40mm lens for the z. The 3 lenses offered so far seem enormous.

It isn't for everyone. And I do shoot with a ricoh grll and an olympus m1v2. Image quality from these is very good. I have different needs for the full frame.

Still. I am thinking about this. Will try the z body at my local camera store. Take my time. Try and be patient.

I wonder about a leica Q2. I wonder about the panasonic full frame to come. How about the Olympus bigger body coming in January.

Honestly, I would try for an older leica with one or two lenses, but I want/need auto focus.

Will do something soon. Life is short. Want to get on with this while I still have time.

 

[Keith]

I encountered a guy doing aerial real estate photography with a drone next door yesterday. His choice of camera was an A7R for the lack of weight compared to his pro Nikon gear that he uses for other stuff. He mentioned he was very happy with the image quality.

 

[kuuan]

not about the new offerings mentioned, being big, but generally about mirrorless:
small is a main charm for me. For the same reason I am using adapted RF lenses.

 

[Contarama]

I encountered a guy doing aerial real estate photography with a drone next door yesterday. His choice of camera was an A7R for the lack of weight compared to his pro Nikon gear that he uses for other stuff. He mentioned he was very happy with the image quality.

I encountered a real estate guy a couple weeks ago using an a7 + drone w/go pro setup. Camera had some China made ultra wide which he said had nil distortion. His most interesting comment however was that he was paid 200 a house and does 2 a day 5 days a week for the past couple years.

 

[Dogman]

One thing I will lament about most mirrorless cameras is the lack of optical viewfinders. The main reason my main cameras are the Fuji X-Pro and X100 is the inclusion of optical viewfinders. While electronic viewfinders have many pluses, there are times when a good optical finder is superior. For instance, I'm an eyeglass wearer and on bright sunny days I often find EVFs become almost unusable due to the high contrast light and the sunbeams that hit the eyepiece from the side. I was reminded of this yesterday when I was using my X-T1 in the afternoon and I had to go through contortions to try and block that stray light.

Of course, when shooting inside or in very low light conditions, EVFs are superior. The beauty of the Fuji X-Pro and X-100 cameras is that they have both electronic and optical finders. It's nice to have options.

 

[NickTrop]

Don't really get the wailing about battery life - my Sony A7R II takes about 250-350 photos per battery. People seem to think that's terrible but that's at least a day's photography. (Or 10 rolls of film in old money.) If you're shooting much more than that without good reason, you're doing photography wrong...!

Also, it's not exactly time consuming to change a battery. Faster than, hmm..., loading film!

Oh -- I totally get the battery life thing. Ever shoot a wedding? You will easily hit the battery limit then have to swap out. Not something I'd want to worry about. To me the posted limits are akin to point-n-shoot digitals where battery life was always a concern. Never a concern on DSLRs. You're minimizing the battery life issue. I had digicams with terrible battery life. Who'd want to go back to that? Always in fear of running out of juice, "hoping" you charged that other battery. No thanks. The Nikon Z6 has a limit of 310 shots. Not bad but not good. And comparing 310 shots to "X rolls of film" is false equivalency. Nobody shoots digital "that" way.

 

[arseniii]

I am using Leica SL, fantastic EVF easily and precisely to focus manual lenses and great 24-90mm zoom. I would never go back to that ancient rangefinder system that goes out of alignment.

LoL what a thing to write on RANGEFINDERforum 🙂

I however feel you... after discovering Olympus and IBIS in 2013 and all the new possibilities and things it can do over rangefinder I look at my film leicas as relics of the past now. They are still very fun to use, but it feels like a restriction in a lot of ways.

 

[Rob-F]

I think I have enough stuff already. No appeal for me.

 

[ptpdprinter]

The Nikon Z6 has a limit of 310 shots. Not bad but not good. And comparing 310 shots to "X rolls of film" is false equivalency. Nobody shoots digital "that" way.

Nobody? I shoot digital like film. I carry an extra battery and rarely need it. I doubt I am the only one. Fortunately, I don't shoot weddings. Most photographers don't.

 

[dmr]

One thing I will lament about most mirrorless cameras is the lack of optical viewfinders. The main reason my main cameras are the Fuji X-Pro and X100 is the inclusion of optical viewfinders. While electronic viewfinders have many pluses, there are times when a good optical finder is superior. For instance, I'm an eyeglass wearer and on bright sunny days I often find EVFs become almost unusable due to the high contrast light and the sunbeams that hit the eyepiece from the side.

I really don't care if it's optical or electronic, just so it's eye-level and I can compose with it. I will often compose with both eyes open, using the viewfinder for framing. I tend to do it with RFs too.

Now I do admit that the viewfinder on the HS30 is not as clean and clear as an optical finder. It's obviously a video type image. However, on the X-T20 it's much better. I actually don't realize it's electronic unless I think of it.

I wear glasses (nearsighted since teens) but I often go without them. I've never had issues with the viewfinders with or without glasses. Both of the Fujis have the convenient corrector dial which is easy to adjust either way. On the Pentaxes I clip on a kind of makeshift corrector when I shoot without glasses.

 

[colker]

we always had different cameras: tlr, slr, rangefinder, view cameras. Mirrorless is just another type. It happens to be small, precise, light w/ sensors that record night scenes like it was never done before.

DSLRs are much better at battery life and capturing action.Mirrorless is much better at street style photography w/ it´s lightweight and small size.

Each format excells at certain disciplines. Each photographer has it´s favourites. Some photographers shoot them all.
I like cameras but I am a photographer and i shoot w/ the best tool for what i have in mind. It can be any format. It can be Film if i want to have a physical file. Digital if i want a kind of color. This or that camera. No camera is perfect. Images are perfect.