C'mon let's wake this forum up

[Arg]

Very quiet forum here! Surely there are more mirrorless camera users on Ausphotography than this?

Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. This thread can be a kind of register of DSLM (i.e. mirrorless) camera photographers.

I got into it with my new Lumix kit almost a year ago. Sold all my Canon gear and went 'cold turkey'. How about you?

We are the only growing segment in new camera sales right now -- it's time we started talking! [emoji4]

[Kym]

Maybe it is because they are EVIL ? :lol2:

[I @ M]

Very quiet forum here! Surely there are more mirrorless camera users on Ausphotography than this?

Probably are but images are worth a lot more than numbers.


Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. This thread can be a kind of register of DSLM (i.e. mirrorless) camera photographers.

Is there something extra special about mirrorless photographers? Sorry, I don't quite see how the choice of gear makes someone a better photographer than others.


I got into it with my new Lumix kit almost a year ago. Sold all my Canon gear and went 'cold turkey'. How about you?

Well, I kept all the "old tech" DSLR stuff and added a new "mirrorless" body with the theory that those who blindly abandon one system for another are misguided sheeple. Make use of all tech available is my theory ------


We are the only growing segment in new camera sales right now -- it's time we started talking! [emoji4]

Probably a few smart phone manufacturers would debate that -----

Seriously Arg, if you are that hung up on gear I reckon you need a reality check and possibly a change of hobby.
Sorry, just saying it as I see it.

[old dog]

haaa Kym. Well I got the Fuji X-E1 with the kit 18-55 lens. I thought it was for holidays as I was getting tired dragging my nikon and lenses around. and you know what, overall it is a real pleasure using and carrying it. Missed a few shots re slower AF speed but I am a happy camper. It outperforms my D7000 in the ISO department too.....just.

[bcys1961]

I'm here !

I have never owned a DSLR . When I decided to get more seriously into photography , just under a year ago , I went straight from a P&S to an Olympus OMD-EM1 and love it . I can't compare to DSLR cause I never owned one and I don't think I ever will now . I can carry my camera body , 12-40mm lens, 60mm macro lens ( and 40- 150mm when I get it ) around my waist in a small waist bag , with the tripod strapped underneath. Why would you go for anything else!

[Arg]

Probably are but images are worth a lot more than numbers.

Is there something extra special about mirrorless photographers? Sorry, I don't quite see how the choice of gear makes someone a better photographer than others.

Well, I kept all the "old tech" DSLR stuff and added a new "mirrorless" body with the theory that those who blindly abandon one system for another are misguided sheeple. Make use of all tech available is my theory ------

Probably a few smart phone manufacturers would debate that -----

Seriously Arg, if you are that hung up on gear I reckon you need a reality check and possibly a change of hobby.
Sorry, just saying it as I see it.

Despite the unbridled aggression, WELCOME Andrew! I look forward to your next, and much more positive, post.

Out of the last 10 threads you started, half were about the gear, so..... :lol: :th3:

- - - Updated - - -


Maybe it is because the are EVIL ? :lol2:

But are they so EVIL, that, like Voldemort, no one dare mention them? :D ;)

Thanks, Kym, for chipping in.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm here !

I have never owned a DSLR . When I decided to get more seriously into photography , just under a year ago , I went straight from a P&S to an Olympus OMD-EM1 and love it . I can't compare to DSLR cause I never owned one and I don't think I ever will now . I can carry my camera body , 12-40mm lens, 60mm macro lens ( and 40- 150mm when I get it ) around my waist in a small waist bag , with the tripod strapped underneath. Why would you go for anything else!

Hi Brad, that's quite a high-end kit you have stepped in with! :ologo: No wonder you are so happy.

Sometimes a new mirrorless user has some issues adapting or learning the new kit (here's the ideal place to discuss it!) but you look to be a real success story.

[Nick Cliff]

Arg I agree the mirrorless evolution is very rapid and will gather pace as more people who are not totally professional replace their cameras. I have been told that at 5 years or so that is generally when cameras start to become more unreliable.The difference is astonishing with the Olympus cameras in my experience between the EPL-5 upgrading to the EP-5. Very interesting times in this hobby for me at least in the last few years with the Micro 4/3 system especially being able to use many classic manual focus lenses so easily.
Regards Nick.

[bcys1961]

Hi Brad, that's quite a high-end kit you have stepped in with! :ologo: No wonder you are so happy.

Sometimes a new mirrorless user has some issues adapting or learning the new kit (here's the ideal place to discuss it!) but you look to be a real success story.


Thanks Arg. Well , with any technology I figure I may as well buy the best I can afford , even if it can do more than I am capable of at the time . That gives me scope to learn, room to grow , and not regret later that I should have bought the higher quality. I'll get more years of life out of it before I upgrade , if at all . I'm loving this new hobby and realise even though I have learnt a great deal in 12 months I still have so much to learn. I think the great think about this hobby is you can always keep learning and growing . I just wish I had got into it years ago .

[MissionMan]

Going mirrorless is like trying to convince your friends that your Hyundai is really a BMW because you put a BMW badge on the back. If god used a camera it would be a DSLR (not just any DSLR, a Nikon)

I'm going to run away really quickly now before people find my home address. :lol2:

[bcys1961]

Going mirrorless is like trying to convince your friends that your Hyundai is really a BMW because you put a BMW badge on the back. If god used a camera it would be a DSLR (not just any DSLR, a Nikon)


"Gear is good ....Vision is better" David Duchemin , one of my favourite photographers at the moment.

[Mary Anne]

Very quiet forum here! Surely there are more mirrorless camera users on Ausphotography than this?

Arg ... I have started a few Threads here and on the CC Forums with plenty of images on them.
So where have you been ?


Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. This thread can be a kind of register of DSLM (i.e. mirrorless) camera photographers.

I am into new camera gear sadly not with the m4/3 anymore :confused013


got into it with my new Lumix kit almost a year ago. Sold all my Canon gear and went 'cold turkey'. How about you?

I bought my E-M1 with the 12-40mm lens 10 months ago followered by the 60mm macro lens and of course the FL 600R Flash
And if you read the Threads I have started you would understand why I have lost interest in my camera.


And no way would I sell any of my DSLR gear actually I bought a new DSLR five weeks ago.

To Me Its The Best.


We are the only growing segment in new camera sales right now -- it's time we started talking! [emoji4]

Start Talking you write WHY I ask. Less Talk and more action I say.
Get out there and start taking some photos so we can see how good your camera is :D

[bcys1961]

I bought my E-M1 with the 12-40mm lens 10 months ago followered by the 60mm macro lens and of course the FL 600R Flash
And if you read the Threads I have started you would understand why I have lost interest in my camera.




I don't read every thread Mary Anne , some times I can go days without logging in , so I must have missed what happened to your OMD. Why is the Oly out of favour ?

[Mary Anne]

This is why Brad http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136172-Problems-With-The-E-M1

[bcys1961]

This is why Brad http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136172-Problems-With-The-E-M1

Thanks Mary Anne , I have not had the rear wheel or green spot problem ( touch wood!) but did have the soft rubber coming off on the back around the picture display button. I just put a little super glue under it and glued it back down myself. Hope I don't have any problems as I don't have another camera to play with if this needed a service. Still at least service sounds good.

[MattNQ]

Very quiet forum here! Surely there are more mirrorless camera users on Ausphotography than this?

Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. This thread can be a kind of register of DSLM (i.e. mirrorless) camera photographers.


I kinda forgot this forum was here. I tend to post my mirrorless stuff in the sparsely posted Oly forum or the various CC forums .



Sent from Earth via Tapatalk

[Nick Cliff]

From reviews online it seems many top end new cameras are more prone to problems in the first year or so of production. I recall one review were they had to replace the top brand camera a few times just to complete the review. To be fair it seems as complexity is increasing so are the initial problems to the point an American company posts online reviews of their camera and lens hire performances (as many of you would already be aware) and most brands seem to be having issues now. Sorry to hear of Mary-Anne having so many problems with the EM-1.

[harper]

recently purchased the A7R for my landscape work but i am in no way getting rid of my canon gear as i still feel more comfortable with it

[Birdman]

I purchased a Fujifilm FinePix X100S a few months back, great little camera, can't complain I use it as my walk around town camera when I don't feel like lugging my DSLR around, bought all the accessories for it so I could shoot landscapes but my DSLR just keeps taking precedence:D

[Arg]

I have noticed that DSLM owners tend to fall into one of two categories: it's your main camera, or it's your second camera.

Those who make it their main camera tend to be a lot more enthusiastic.

To those who make it their second camera -- the impression given is that all they wanted was a small walk-around option without a small sensor. Well, you are still welcome even if you are in need of an attitude adjustment! :lol:

Personally, I am not so gear-oriented or high-budget that having two camera systems is sustainable or sensible for me. A compact camera or a bridge camera for a second camera, sure, but an entire second system?

So, if your DSLM is your second full-system camera, how's that working for you? Expensive? Is it better than having a Fuji X100-type walk-around, like Daniel above, or a FZ1000-type bridge for a second camera?

[bcys1961]

I think if you have invest a lot of time and money into a camera system , a natural reaction , when someone comes along and suggests there may be something better out there is to be a little defensive. Let's face it the aggression exists between Canon and Nikon users which are both DSLR systems as each feel they have made the right choice . In reality I think the quality of most of the main camera brands on the market exceeds the quality of the photographers using them so brand is not that important.

Even though I have a Olympus OMD as my main camera , I'm still thinking of getting a second "walk around" camera , but it would be something even smaller like a high quality P&S or even a Oly PEN EP ??? with a very small lens. Something I could put in my pocket , as I find even the OMD is a bit big to have on you ALL the time , and ultimately the best camera is the one you have with you.

[MissionMan]

When it comes to mirrorless, it's actually one of the first systems I recommend to people. The reason I say this, is only a fraction of people I know (outside of ausphotography) who buy or have bought DSLR's are actually photography enthusiasts so none of them will ever really benefit from the advantages that a DSLR would offer over a mirrorless camera and the images produced are likely to be better because a mirrorless with higher quality lenses is more affordable than the DSLR equivalent so they could probably afford to get better image quality for the same price.

As for personally, I have two cameras, my Full frame which goes with me most of the time (excluding work, outings to movies etc) and my mobile phone which has a decent enough camera for what I need when I don't need a DSLR. I have a couple of small point and shoots, but if I am going to take them, I'd rather take my DSLR or I'll just take my phone.

[Mary Anne]

The E-M1 was going to be my Main Camera eventually that's why I bought the 60mm Macro Lens and Flash was also looking forward to getting the 300mm f/4 lens next year or when it comes out as I need a Birding Lens.
Also looked at getting the off camera flash bracket, extension tubes and a few other things, and is it expensive Yes it is, though all good cameras are.
Yet I have paid for a Pro Camera that has many faults remembering now its not my first E-M1 its my second one, perhaps an inferior batch was sent out to Australia who knows.

I liked the camera, especially the way it felt in my hands it was so light with the tiny macro lens and flash on it, weighing 1108gms against my DSLR Macro gear at 2380gms.
As I do a lot of holding the camera with one hand while holding a leaf with a Spider on it with the other hand so this E-M1 was ideal till things started to happen to it.
I do realise I still have a lot of learning to do with this E-M1 though I was surprised recently when I got that second camera back from being repaired how much I still remembered, considering I was learning my new DSLR also.
Regardless of what camera I use the DSLR gear produces better bokeh when it come to backgrounds, unless shooting 1.1 macro then its about the same as the DSLR.

[Arg]

Thanks Mary Anne. Some people have bad luck with DSLR reliability, yours was with DSLM. If you have any future trouble with your DSLR we will conclude that you are cursed!

Bokeh is the lens not the camera, (not to mention also a personal preference not a technical advantage and so others might prefer the opposite to you), so you can put your Canon lens on a DSLM and get the same bokeh. Or try a full frame DSLM!

[Mary Anne]

My Pleasure Arg.. Yes it may seem that way :D I forgot to write I was thinking of getting the 75mm f/1.8 as mentioned on line elsewhere the Bokeh is suppose to be good.
I have used the Kipon adaptor with my Canon 70-200mm f/4 Lens on my E-M1 and even so the BG is not as smooth and creamy, which I need when shooting Birds
The E-M1 with this adaptor does not like that zoom lens, I also tried it with my heavier 300mm f/4 found it hard to hold the gear and focus manually on Birds in Flight, that is an age thing.
Had a go with my MP-E 65mm macro lens and was very impressed with that combo though wont try it again, was looking to getting the the m4/3 Extension Tubes for getting that close.
I will see how the camera goes next year, I just cannot seem to get back into it right now sadly I have lost interest and a shame really as I have done quite a lot with this little camera.

[Arg]

No doubt, getting into mirrorless when BIF (birds in flight) is a current area of focus (pun :p) with one's DSLR photography, is not something I would recommend. Not just yet.

[MissionMan]

Agree with the comments on bokeh. It is lens related so things like the shape of the aperture can have a big impact so it all depends on how the lens is constructed and how many blades it is constructed with.

[Nick Cliff]

I had wondered if the Metabones speed booster may improve bokeh for birding with M4/3 system if the lens is not particularly fast perhaps if manual focus is your preference.

[Ian Brewster]

Whatever is all the noise about here? Due to a calamity I moved from a Sony bridge camera, DSCR1 to a Sony A57 mirror less. If I could afford to output large prints a lot, maybe there would be a difference but as nearly all my enjoyment is in digital output, I am a happy chappy. If the newer small bodies had been around, for mobility I would have ditched the body-shape that has hung around from the reflex age.

[Ian Brewster]

No doubt, getting into mirrorless when BIF (birds in flight) is a current area of focus (pun :p) with one's DSLR photography, is not something I would recommend. Not just yet.

Could you please explain this view a bit more? My understanding is that an advantage of mirror less is the much faster fps given that they also now have phase detection AF? What am I missing?

[MissionMan]

Could you please explain this view a bit more? My understanding is that an advantage of mirror less is the much faster fps given that they also now have phase detection AF? What am I missing?

In short, a mirrorless still won't match a DSLR with focus speed if you're using a pro lens. It's good by non-DSLR standards, but still not as good for focus tracking. Fps isn't everything, having 10fps isn't much help if the object isn't in focus. Also remember there is in focus and in focus. By that I mean the focus may lock on, but may not be as accurate.

[Boo53]

I think, perhaps, mirrors is not the appropriate description for a range of cameras anymore.

I'd match the performance of my A77 & A65 against any aps-c dslr anyway, including focus sharpness and 12 fps performance. I doubt they're in the same category as the 4/3rds systems some have, although on a technicality, they have translucent mirrors not reflex mirrors.

I'm also very happy with my A7r, completely mirrorsless and full frame.

At this end of the gear spectrum performance is more likely to be about users ability than gear.

[Arg]

...my A77 & A65 ... I doubt they're in the same category as the 4/3rds systems some have, although on a technicality, they have translucent mirrors not reflex mirrors.

Hi John, I agree, the Sony pellicle models are a unique sub-category of mirrorless camera. As you say, they do have a mirror! :p

Anyway, welcome! Diversity is strength!

- - - Updated - - -


No doubt, getting into mirrorless when BIF (birds in flight) is a current area of focus with one's DSLR photography, is not something I would recommend. Not just yet.


Could you please explain this view a bit more? My understanding is that an advantage of mirror less is the much faster fps given that they also now have phase detection AF? What am I missing?

Two things, Ian.

[1] DSLM cameras are indeed the fastest at auto focus, but that applies to subjects that are not moving extremely fast towards/away from the camera. In such situations, DSLM cameras are not yet as good as the best DSLRs. And that is a common need for birds-in-flight photography.

[2] Serious bird photographers have a saying "you can't have a long enough lens". Some birds are small and shy, and no amount of expertise will get you close enough for a 200 to 300mm (full frame) lens to do the job you need. These serious guys are willing to pay big bucks for specialist lenses and matching teleconverters that add up to 1000mm or more. At this point in time mirrorless cameras don't have 'native' lenses available in this class. Although, you could always take one of the above Canon/Nikon specialist lenses and adapt it to a mirrorless camera, you won't have AF. (Although, just between you and me, trying to do BIF with a 1000mm lens is akin to self-flagellation!)

[arthurking83]

......

[2] Serious bird photographers have a saying "you can't have a long enough lens". Some birds are small and shy, and no amount of expertise will get you close enough for a 200 to 300mm (full frame) lens to do the job you need. These serious guys are willing to pay big bucks for specialist lenses and matching teleconverters that add up to 1000mm or more. At this point in time mirrorless cameras don't have 'native' lenses available in this class. ....

So why not just crop the image? :confused:

[Arg]

Sure! I use my100-300 Lumix for all my bird photography when a long lens is needed, it works well for me, and crop when I need to.

Some bird photographers demand such high quality that they want to fill the frame without cropping, though.

[arthurking83]

......

Some bird photographers demand such high quality that they want to fill the frame without cropping, though.

And the issue is?

[CoolyCafe]

I have one of these.

http://www.videomaker.com/sites/videomaker.com/files/styles/vm_image_token_lightbox/public/articles/15514/BMCC.PNG?itok=HF2SBoX_

Does that count?

Please do not post images that you do not own copyright to -- see forum rule 20 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/misc.php?do=vsarules)

[Arg]

And the issue is?
What are you on about? State your position on the matter please.

[Arg]

I have one of these.

http://www.videomaker.com/sites/videomaker.com/files/styles/vm_image_token_lightbox/public/articles/15514/BMCC.PNG?itok=HF2SBoX_

Does that count?

Please do not post images that you do not own copyright to -- see forum rule 20 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/misc.php?do=vsarules)
I don't know much about them. What do you think? Do they take good still images or basically a camcorder? Cameras like the Panasonic GH4 are blurring the line between still cameras and camcorders. The future is going to open new doors for image enthusiasts IMHO.

[ameerat42]

...I think the quality of most of the main camera brands on the market exceeds the quality of the photographers using them so brand is not that important...

Good point you are making here, but the use of "most" should be something like, "of most photographers". I don't exclude myself from that category, either:o

[bcys1961]

Good point you are making here, but the use of "most" should be something like, "of most photographers". I don't exclude myself from that category, either:o

Nor do I , and its great to know that as you learn more and your skills grows your camera will allow you the opportunities to put it all into practice .

[CoolyCafe]

I don't know much about them. What do you think? Do they take good still images or basically a camcorder? Cameras like the Panasonic GH4 are blurring the line between still cameras and camcorders. The future is going to open new doors for image enthusiasts IMHO.

It is a cinematic camera but obviously stills can be extracted from the footage. It is capable of capturing data with 13 stops of dynamic range.

[arthurking83]

I really don't have any 'position' on the matter .. my curiosity is always in many and varied topics related to photography.

A few thoughts to ponder(and/or research if one is inclined to do so).

Mirrorless cameras can be as fast, or even faster, to focus than a DSLR ... if you choose the appropriate system!(Nikon V1)
If someone wanted a small, light and very fast focusing(and shooting!) camera for birds in flight, the Nikon V1(with an AF-S type lens) is supposedly recommended in good light

....

As you're choice of mirrorless camera is Panasonic, I assume you see this from the perspective of a m4/3rds system user.

If this previously referred too high quality demanding photographer was such an idealist as to never crop their images, but their choice of camera system were a m4/3rds + 300mm lens .. is this any different to using an APS-C camera + 300mm lens and cropping?

If they instead chose to use a full frame camera(of any make model and system type) .. were to do the same and crop to 1/2 the original frame .. is it any different to shooting with the m4/3rds + 300mm lens too?

If one perfectionist photographer(photographer A) were using an APS-C camera + 300mm lens and gets their image rendered perfectly sharp, and another perfectionist photographer(photographer B) using a m4/3rds camera + 300mm lens both from the same viewpoint on the same scene .. isn't photographer B's image cropped by comparison to photographer A?
Just because the image wasn't cropped .. does it mean that it's not cropped!
Looked at from the POV of photographer B, their image is not cropped.
But looked at from photographer A's perspective, B's photo is cropped, and A's photo is not?

Filling the frame is not a definition for 'high quality'. If this were the case, then all images shot and displayed without a crop must all be of the highest quality.

Any photographer with the idea that filling the frame is what creates high quality images is surely deluded!
They should simply use the appropriate gear(they have access too) for the situation .. and then process the image to it's final form.

Cropping, or not, should have no bearing on the standard of quality in the resultant image.

Having said that, I'm a habitual non cropper. I hate doing it. Actually I hate cropping more so for the fact that it requires more work in PP .. and I'm inherently lazy .. less is more! ;)
But my resistance to cropping images .. and fussing over framing by a few cm's here and there has noting to do with high quality.
But I have used crop mode on the odd occasion(some Nikon cameras have a crop mode .. Fx to Dx, and the D7100 has a 2x crop mode .. give it basically a m4/3rds crop factor!)
Reasons I used crop mode were that I may have been out birding with my 300mm on my D800) and didn't want the extraneous periphery viewpoint.
I've also done it for when I used to use my APS-C only Sigma 10-20mm lens, as this lens never covered the full Fx frame size. But I've also not used Dx crop mode with this lens too and cropped to 1x1 format for those images.
Most of my cropped images will have been macro/closeups types. Again, not because of any quality advantage or disadvantage .. simply because that process may have given me the best image output option.

When I look at my D800+Siggy 10-20 Dx mode shots, I never cropped them. Yet I used crop mode on the camera. Are they cropped?




I've read about these so called high quality demanding non cropping perfectionist types too. I don't think that they're actually real people tho.
They're usually internet only persona's.



.... is there a particular statement of position you wanted me to explain?

[Arg]

Ok, I get your point now. You are saying that mirrorless = small sensor, so cropping is a relevant point about bird photography comparisons between the two technologies DSLR and DSLM.

In fact, mirrorless = whatever sensor size you want to buy! I certainly wasn't commenting only on my own current camera.

My point [2] about mirrorless and bird photography (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136397-C-mon-let-s-wake-this-forum-up&p=1268034#post1268034) was that dedicated bird photo enthusiasts end up gravitating toward lenses that are currently only native to Canon and Nikon DSLR systems. No current mirrorless system offers them exactly what they would like, yet.

[arthurking83]

Ok, I get your point now. You are saying that mirrorless = small sensor.....

Sort of yes and no.

A photographer needs to understand some basic common sense principles about the gear they choose to use(or may need) for a particular situation.

I wasn't implying that mirrorless = small sensor camera .. not at all.
But, many times people confuse the idea that a 300mm lens on a m4/3rds camera is the same as a 600mm lens on a 135 format camera.
It's definitely not the same thing, but it appears to provide for a similarly framed photo!
But what needs to be realised is that the 600mm + 135 format image can be cropped to this 2x crop factor which then yields a 1200mm FOV image.

A fussy bird photographer requiring the utmost in image quality will understand this concept properly.
Hence cropping should be of no consequence to them. As long as it's appropriate for the situation and the quality is acceptable cropping the image will still result in high quality images.

Also, the smart bird photographer will also realise that a full frame mirrorless camera is not going to give them any advantage for shooting birds(especially in flight!)
The only current mirrorless full frame camera is the Sony A7 triplets.
I've had a few brief minutes with this camera, and immediately I noticed that the focusing, while OK, was obviously not in the fast enough for BIF photography. It seemed to be more of a deliberate and accurate process .. than a 'quickly, get it in focus' operation.
So mirrorless bird photography is really limited to some m4/3 cameras, Sony a6000's and or Nikon V1's .. if you want any chance for speedy focus tracking.
Otherwise it's DSLRs which are either APS-C or fullframe.

I have no doubt that in the years to come once DSLR models will become mirrorless types ... not because it's better .. if it were it'd have happened many years ago.
It will happen because it will eventually become the cheaper way to make cameras. Simpler manufacturing = cheaper.

I think that (most)dedicated bird photographers tend to gravitate to Nikon/Canon more so because of the entire system rather than just the lens selection that suits their needs.
Both the cameras focusing and the lens choices are important .. as well as cost.

I remember years ago an ex member here who was a certifiable Nikon nutcase(as many of us tend to be :p) .. was looking for a 500mm lens for birding.
Nikon's pricing scheme was so ludicrous back then(and probably still now!) that instead of purchasing a Nikon 500/4 VR for his Nikon DSLRs(2), this person purchased a Canon 60D(I think) and a Canon 500/4 because it was cheaper than the Nikon lens alone!

So there are many reasons why a person will choose a particular gear set to play with.

[swifty]

Ahhh... But Arthur, you've neglected the issue of pixel density.
Just as a 300mm lens on 4/3 is not the same as 600mm on 135, a photo taken with a 300mm 135 lens on FF cropped to 4/3 yielding a similar FOV as a 300mm on 4/3 is also not the same on a practical basis.
I can't do accurate aspect ratio conversions in my head but if it were the same then you're saying an ~4mp D4 crop at 300/4 is the same as an E-M1 with a 300/4 (upcoming lens, I know you can't buy it yet). Even a D810 would be at a disadvantage with ~9mp crop. If you believe the upcoming 50mp Sony and Canon rumours then we're getting closer purely from a resolution sampling POV.
And in the DSLR situation you're wasting bandwidth/buffer by shooting FF then cropping later (but with the advantage of freedom of crop), or if you're applying the crop in camera, you're looking at a pretty small box within your VF (but at the advantage of seeing what's coming or leaving the cropped frame).

But I feel we're straying off the discussion of mirrorless and mirrored and crossed over to size format advantages/disadvantages.

There will be pros and cons regardless of mirror/mirrorless camera types.
How many birders will take a 24mp theoretical D400 DSLR vs the excellent D810.
When AF (tracking) on mirrorless catches up or exceeds DSLRs, how many birders would take a completely silent mirrorless camera with up to video like FPS and pro DSLR like buffers over a DSLR.
In one, there's pixel density advantages, in the second example there are advantages by removing the mirror.

Point is there are advantages to both DSLRs and mirrorless. I really can't see what all the fuss is all about.

[Arg]

.....But I feel we're straying off the discussion of mirrorless and mirrored and crossed over to size format advantages/disadvantages.

Exactly!

Please guys..... let's not turn this into an equivalency thread.

DSLM/mirrorless comes in a range of sensor sizes, so you might as well move your posts on equivalency into the DSLR threads. They 'need' to know too.

[jev]

I have no doubt that in the years to come once DSLR models will become mirrorless types ... not because it's better .. if it were it'd have happened many years ago.
It will happen because it will eventually become the cheaper way to make cameras. Simpler manufacturing = cheaper.


I'm not saying the current technology is good enough to do fast subjecttracking, but IQ-wise the removal of the mirror also means removal of the mirror-slap and inherently removing mirrorslap induced camera-shake from the equation. In this respect, mirrorless *is* better.

Note that there are no camera's sold because they excel in shooting "birds in flights", sports maybe - but not "just sports" (not anymore) - the fastest dSLR's have become alround camera's for a reason.

[MissionMan]

I'm not saying the current technology is good enough to do fast subjecttracking, but IQ-wise the removal of the mirror also means removal of the mirror-slap and inherently removing mirrorslap induced camera-shake from the equation. In this respect, mirrorless *is* better.

Note that there are no camera's sold because they excel in shooting "birds in flights", sports maybe - but not "just sports" (not anymore) - the fastest dSLR's have become alround camera's for a reason.

The high end models were made for sports, it's just that sports are essentially what make the camera good for other aspects. I.e. Low noise at high ISO, high frame rate, top notch autofocus, etc.

[swifty]

I'm not saying the current technology is good enough to do fast subjecttracking, but IQ-wise the removal of the mirror also means removal of the mirror-slap and inherently removing mirrorslap induced camera-shake from the equation. In this respect, mirrorless *is* better.


Well.. that's not the full story though. Because the sensor must provide a live feed for the EVF or LCD, the physical shutter must be closed down then opened, then closed again for each actuation and hence mirrorless cameras can be susceptible to shutter shock.
Electronic shutters can get rid of that but has other side effects.
Until we get global electronic shutters, then some form of physical vibration is still at play during actuation.

- - - Updated - - -


The high end models were made for sports, it's just that sports are essentially what make the camera good for other aspects. I.e. Low noise at high ISO, high frame rate, top notch autofocus, etc.

However none of those qualities are inherent nor exclusive to a DSLR design with the exception of a sub-mirror PDAF system that is currently still king.
The inherent quality of a DSLR is the optical viewfinder. And it is very important to some and not important to others.

[coolie21]

I was an early adopter (2010) and have loved my panasonic gf1 and had some great shots, but there have also been occasions when it has been worse than useless (mainly low light). However I understand some of the more recent bodies have very good low light capabilities. I actually took full frame dslr and micro 4/3 on a recent trip, and ended up using the dslr most, despite its greater bulk.

[arthurking83]

..... In this respect, mirrorless *is* better.
.....

Well .. yes and no(mostly no, tho!)

All modern DSLRs do have access to Liveview. In other words the best of both worlds. Live view mimics mirrorless type cameras, and reflex for when such a system is more appropriate.
Of course in saying that some manufacturers have seen fit to design their Liveview mode in the worst possible manner(ie. D300 as an example) so that mirror slap when using Liveview on this camera(and any other similarly implemented Lv systems) .. is magnified at least twofold!
With the D300 I never used Lv mode to expose the image. Only focus, when critical focus was needed, and then switch Lv off and shoot through the vf.

A few cameras (even lower end) also have either mirror lockup for this purpose, or exposure delay(or both) to help combat mirror slap.

One important aspect on the topic of mirrorless cameras! Can you turn off both EVF and main LCD displays so that no image is shown during an exposure?

If(most likely when!) I end up with a mirrorless(or EVF type) camera, this is something that would be an important feature for me.
Not that I do a lot of long exposure photography, but when I do, I'd rather that the display weren't using any power as it's simply a waste.
Also(due to the way I do landscape) I'd rather that the camera just sit where I set it up and not use any power, but be ready to expose within a few milliseconds of pressing a remote trigger.

[jev]

Well.. that's not the full story though. Because the sensor must provide a live feed for the EVF or LCD, the physical shutter must be closed down then opened, then closed again for each actuation and hence mirrorless cameras can be susceptible to shutter shock.
The shutter shock is there with dSLR's too. Also, technically it would be possible to use a leaf-shutter which nullifies shutter shock. The mirror-slap however is much heavier.


The inherent quality of a DSLR is the optical viewfinder. And it is very important to some and not important to others.
I used to think that too. Than, I picked up a Fuji X-T1...

Sure, in some aspects, an optical viewfinder is superior to EVF's you find in today's equipment. Size mainly. Delay, for some. OTOH, there are advantages of an EVF too. In the dark for example, a good EVF can show much more than an optical viewfinder can.

The EVF in the X-T1 is really good, it just lacks on size. But technically, there's nothing an optical viewfinder provides than an EVF can't.


One important aspect on the topic of mirrorless cameras! Can you turn off both EVF and main LCD displays so that no image is shown during an exposure?
Yes.

[arthurking83]

...... But technically, there's nothing an optical viewfinder provides than an EVF can't.




At the risk of sending this thread off the rails .. this is not strictly true.

to some of us a non artificial view of the world is important.

Something that an EVF can't provide us with.

While on a more technical point, LCD technology is not yet at a point that can provide as much dynamic range as the human eye can accept.
An OVF still allows the eye to view a higher dynamic range than an EVF can provide us with.
Another technical point(even if it is extremely specialised or possibly rare) is one of flicker.
The way any screen operates is that the display is not really a constant stream of information, but a series of alternating streams, with a specific refresh rate.
If scene has an alternating frequency of refresh rate that matches the display, then you get flicker in the display.
On a similar note, the refresh rates are still not high enough to fully eliminate smearing(or tearing) of a scene if the camera is panned quickly.

From memory the XT-1 uses a similar EVF LCD to the Sony A7 cameras(albeit with added features). Specs are basically the same tho.
My personal view(currently) is that the positives in EVF tech still don't outweigh the negatives inherent in the system. Hopefully one day soon they will.

[bcys1961]

I'm afraid I just tune out when the discussion gets to this level of technicalities. :confused013

[swifty]

The shutter shock is there with dSLR's too. Also, technically it would be possible to use a leaf-shutter which nullifies shutter shock. The mirror-slap however is much heavier.

Unless you're referring to DSLRs when in Liveview mode, then I'll have to disagree.
Shutter shock is insignificant in DSLR as the front and rear curtain both travel in the same direction during exposure. In mirrorless it is significant because the initial closing of the shutter to block off the sensor before the start of first curtain is in the opposite direction as the usual front and rear curtain.



I used to think that too. Than, I picked up a Fuji X-T1...

Sure, in some aspects, an optical viewfinder is superior to EVF's you find in today's equipment. Size mainly. Delay, for some. OTOH, there are advantages of an EVF too. In the dark for example, a good EVF can show much more than an optical viewfinder can.

The EVF in the X-T1 is really good, it just lacks on size. But technically, there's nothing an optical viewfinder provides than an EVF can't.


I probably used the wrong wording. Rather than quality I should have used the word 'feature'. The inherent feature of a DSLR (well it is what defines a D/SLR) is the optical viewfinder. And this feature is important to some and not to others.
For me, it is important and I have tried the X-T1 EVF many times. And I absolutely agree there are advantages to EVF and I've written about them in previous posts. I think I've also stated that I feel the X-T1 has the best EVF of any current camera on the market that I've tried and I've tried just about every mirrorless model except the new A7II and Samsung models.

We should really get excited when mirrorless tech start to apply to MF cameras. Imagine MF bodies that are sized similar to DSLRs like the D800 or D3 with EVFs covering the entire adobeRGB gamut and resolutions better than your computer screens.
But even when EVFs get to this level, an OVF may still be preferred by some.
This gets to an emotive relationship that some ppl have with photography. Though EVFs can exceed any measureable parameter of an OVF it still isn't the same and hence this is an unwinnable debate between EVFs and OVFs.
Some will just prefer one over the other.

[Arg]

Shutter shock is insignificant in DSLR as the front and rear curtain both travel in the same direction during exposure. In mirrorless it is significant because the initial closing of the shutter to block off the sensor before the start of first curtain is in the opposite direction as the usual front and rear curtain.


If that was the cause of shutter shock, then the Olympus EFSC wouldn't eliminate shutter shock -- but it does. Shutter shock is actually the first curtain -- which makes sense as it is the only 'shock' that occurs while the sensor is getting exposed. So, DSLR cameras are also susceptible.

[MissionMan]

I also think we're arguing about things that don't affect most people to a large degree. Optical viewer has a noticeable impact when you use it, focus speeds are noticeable, but I'd challenge anyone here to show how shutter shock or mirror slap may have destroyed an other amazing photo. Yes, they may have a minor impact, but until we start selling photos for a substantial amount and blowing them up to massive sizes, I don't think the impact will ever be considerable.

[swifty]

If that was the cause of shutter shock, then the Olympus EFSC wouldn't eliminate shutter shock -- but it does. Shutter shock is actually the first curtain -- which makes sense as it is the only 'shock' that occurs while the sensor is getting exposed. So, DSLR cameras are also susceptible.
I may have to eat humble pie but I did read an explanation attributing it to the former and it sounded logical. But apologies and I stand corrected if what I thought was the cause is wrong.

[ameerat42]

...I may have to eat humble pie...

You may want to reconsider: recipe for humble pie. (http://www.grouprecipes.com/98487/humble-pie.html):D

[swifty]

You may want to reconsider: recipe for humble pie. (http://www.grouprecipes.com/98487/humble-pie.html):D

You learn something everyday :D

[arthurking83]

..... but I'd challenge anyone here to show how shutter shock or mirror slap may have destroyed an other amazing photo. Yes, they may have a minor impact.....

I'm sure I read that the shutter shock on the A7r is of a serious concern in some genres(I'd say macro more than anything else).
I think it may have been Luminous Landscape where I saw some images where they compared the issue of affected images against non affected images.

I think the 36Mp may have added to the issue too.

D810 has EFC, I've never read any articles(or repute or note) where shutter shock is an issue with either of the D800 twins tho.

From the info I've found on the topic of shutter vibration in the A7r, it's much worse than it is from the D800E, and that most assume that it's due to the greater mass of the D800's body(which makes sense).
I read Swifty's comments re the shutter vibration issue on DSLRs vs mirrorless cameras, and my initial thoughts were that it'd be due to the mass of the entire system.
I had a horrid time in my early days with the D70s and 500/8(mirror lens) in that I can't ever remember getting a sharp image with this combo, except the odd flukey shot here and there.
After much mucking about, I found that adding weight to appropriate areas of the camera/lens/tripod setup helped a lot.
Mirror slap was the main issue, but the dinky vf on the(pentaprism) D70s didn't help.
A new focus screen plus a 1-2 kg lead shot bean bag helped massively.
Also the mounting of the camera/lens to the tripod made a difference too.
An arduous post on the topic is probably best avoided in this thread tho .. but in some cases less weight isn't necessarily better!

D800E is not unaffected by shutter vibration, it just appears to be to a much lesser degree than the A7r.
In my 5000 images with the D800E, I can't say that shutter shock has ruined any photos of mine. My lack of ability and due diligence has tho! :D

Does it make a difference to images .. depends on the circumstances really .. but I wouldn't want shutter shock affected images at high magnifications!

Apparently Sony has updated the shutter mechanism in the A7II(as well as the lens mount).

[martycon]

You are right Brad, while we are not pros and on a mission, we should still keep our recording equipment readily accessible, and convenient, such as 4/3 or micro ditto, or even a P & S. Consider how much dramatic breaking news footage is provided by mobile phone cameras. Viewers do not care whether it is sharp, as long as it is current and dramatic.

[MissionMan]

Interesting perspective from Samsung

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7808127857/ces-2015-samsung-interview-mirrorless-to-outsell-dslrs-in-three-years

[Arg]

Yes, I saw that. If right, it is the flag for Canikon to enter the fray.

[Arg]

.....properly I mean! [emoji41]

[arthurking83]

I think it's inevitable that CaNikon will change the lower/consumer oriented DSLR lineup to mirrorless types, as it's technically 'cheaper' to build them this way.

The upper/enthusiast/pro DSLR lineup is a different story tho.

While a lot of folks argue on the relative merits of an EVF compared to an OVF .. many(like myself) still prefer a well designed OVF for many reasons.

The lower end Nikon D3xxx/D5xxx and Canon x000D/x000D type models are aimed at a market that don't really care about OVF/EVF differences.
This market segment just want a cheaper price point.
And to be honest, most if not all these lower end/mass market model types only use pentamirror OVF designs anyhow, so the move to an EVF in this model lineup would most likely be an advantage anyway you look at it.

So if this is a likely future scenario, then as the Samsung chap says .. mirrorless ILC's will of course dominate the ILC camera market.

I think it would be pretty unlikely that the Canon/Nikon market dominance will change in the next decade or so (that is, from where it currently sits).

[MissionMan]

I tend to agree with your statements, Arthur. I think the low end digital SLRs will move to Mirrorless and the top end will stay as Digital SLRs. I think the only question that remains is what will happen to the lens line if that happens, in other words, will Nikon and Canon have two sets of lens ranges and the lower end cameras using the mirrorless lens range

[Arg]

The only way to get the American market (which drives global product decisions, make no mistake) to move more rapidly to DSLM, would be to offer mirrorless cameras that are bigger and heavier than the DSLR models. 'cos, y'know, folks, bigger is better. :confused013

Say if Ricoh (formerly Pentax) releases a Micro 645 mirrorless body, as big as a 1DX, for $4500-$5000, with adapters for Canikon lenses to take 44mm circular (ok, cut off at 33mm high) image files (that can be cropped to portrait or landscape or square later -- no need to rotate the camera between shots) .....?

heh heh.... The US buyer will be thinking "Wow, it's huge, it must be the best, what a game changer etc, gotta have one" (remember, this is the country whose top 3 selling new cars are all pick-up trucks). :umm:

But IMHO the biggest problem, in getting Canikon to change, isn't the market acceptance of mirrorless, it's the fact that all their lenses are designed to optimize PDAF. And, although some hybrid sensors are out there, it kind of cripples some of the AF advantages of mirrorless via CDAF. So Canikon, to deliver true high performance DSLM systems, will need to issue new lenses. Like µ4/3 did. Canikon will be loathe to do that.

I don't think it will be a pitched battle over ten years. I think there will be a tipping point, followed by a rout. Exactly what the tipping point will be is something for speculation.... but it will come, and might only be clearly identified during the rout.

[MissionMan]

The only way to get the American market (which drives global product decisions, make no mistake) to move more rapidly to DSLM, would be to offer mirrorless cameras that are bigger and heavier than the DSLR models. 'cos, y'know, folks, bigger is better. :confused013

Say if Ricoh (formerly Pentax) releases a Micro 645 mirrorless body, as big as a 1DX, for $4500-$5000, with adapters for Canikon lenses to take 44mm circular (ok, cut off at 33mm high) image files (that can be cropped to portrait or landscape or square later -- no need to rotate the camera between shots) .....?

heh heh.... The US buyer will be thinking "Wow, it's huge, it must be the best, what a game changer etc, gotta have one" (remember, this is the country whose top 3 selling new cars are all pick-up trucks). :umm:

But IMHO the biggest problem, in getting Canikon to change, isn't the market acceptance of mirrorless, it's the fact that all their lenses are designed to optimize PDAF. And, although some hybrid sensors are out there, it kind of cripples some of the AF advantages of mirrorless via CDAF. So Canikon, to deliver true high performance DSLM systems, will need to issue new lenses. Like µ4/3 did. Canikon will be loathe to do that.

I don't think it will be a pitched battle over ten years. I think there will be a tipping point, followed by a rout. Exactly what the tipping point will be is something for speculation.... but it will come, and might only be clearly identified during the rout.

The challenge with mirrorless at Canikon in it's current format is that they would be unlikely to ever issue a whole set of professional lenses because most people who intend going down the professional path are likely to invest in DSLR lenses for future compatibility. I think the path of least resistence is most likely to simply be a current Canikon mount on a mirrorless camera because as people buy into a new mount, it may impact sales of their more professional ranges due to people being tied to glass and the professional ranges probably have a bigger margin for them.

I'm still not 100% convinced about market direction though. For example, if I want a compact camera, I use my iPhone. The picture quality is good enough for what I want in a smaller size. If I want decent pictures, I use a DSLR. It's not to say I'm representative of all people, but my mum and a lot of her friends no longer carry cameras because phone quality now is good enough for what they need. They no longer print pictures so a mobile phone is good enough for Facebook. Given the bulk of camera sales are on the low end, I think this is likely to have a bigger impact.

[arthurking83]

The only way to get the American market (which drives global product decisions, make no mistake) to move more rapidly to DSLM, would be to offer mirrorless cameras that are bigger and heavier than the DSLR models. 'cos, y'know, folks, bigger is better. :confused013

...... (remember, this is the country whose top 3 selling new cars are all pick-up trucks). :umm:

.....


It's not just a matter of bigger is better .. it's(IMO) a blend of size/price and convenience.

If it were only a matter of bigger=better, then Nikon would be selling D300s's and D810's by the boatload, and the D3300's/D5500's/D7100's/D610's and D750's would all be much less significant to Nikon's lineup as they currently are.

As for the US car sales figures, I tend not to look at market figures on the face of it. It may well be, but my theory is that the most obvious reasons for those large van/ute/wagon type vehicles being the top three, is a simple case of businesses churning old worn out costly to repair vehicles, for newer tax incentivized 'investments'.
Not knowing US tax laws, my guess is that to keep the US Auto industry afloat, the government has tax rebates/kickbacks for vehicle investment.

US based busineses dwarf Aussie business purchasing ability.
Looking at it from the 'most obvious' viewpoint, one would assume that the average American would prefer a massive van/ute/wagon type vehicle over a more sensible family type vehicle such as the Honda CR-V/Accord or Toyota Camry type vehicle.

Similar 'obvious' traits probably exist in the camera sales figures charts.
Many make noises about how strongly mirrorless sales figures are growing year on year .. but the reality is, the percentage value is increasing only, while actual sales figures/manufacturing figures are increasing, but actual sales growth is basically steady(year on year).
You may get a spurious increase in one particular month compared to another, but this will have been due to a new product coming to market, rather than every photographer suddenly realising that mirrorless is the way to go.

I reckon MM is a good general representation of the market in general:


They no longer print pictures so a mobile phone is good enough for Facebook. Given the bulk of camera sales are on the low end, I think this is likely to have a bigger impact.

This is the most probable cause for sales figures at the moment. It's hard to say exactly what's happening as everyone purchases for different reasons.
But if the bigger is better mentality persists, then if as MM says mobile devices are acceptable as the smaller photography device, then smaller cameras(ie. mirrorless) are the most likely specific market to be cannibalised by technological improvements in smart phone camera products.

If you take CIPA sales figures(on face value), and look at November sales figures, total sales/production figures for SLR cameras was down by about 20% in Nov '14 compared to Nov '13.
That is, Nov '14 sales for SLR cameras was 81% of the value for Nov '13(worldwide).

If you look at the figures for what CIPA describes as so-called mirrorless cameras, compact system cameras, rangefinder cameras with interchangeable lens and interchangeable unit system cameras, and similer cameras
Nov '14 sales figures were only 73% of what Nov '13 sales figures were!

mirrorless sales figures are as stagnant, volatile and susceptible to market swings, as are any other camera type.

If I were CaNikon, and I needed to bring to market an 'apparently' cheaper to manufacture mirrorless type camera, it'd have to be based upon the current lens lineup. No if's or buts!
If that means I need to produce a viable on sensor PDAF mechanism, and that this will take time(years) to perfect due to some inherent technical difficulty .. then so be it.

This is a far better prospect for not losing millions of dollars if the market happens to swing in another direction suddenly!
There should be a (kind of) insurance policy, in that if the market swings in an alternate direction to what appears to be the current trend, then having lost only the R&D effort in the one camera is less of a shock to the company's bottom line, than is the dual effort of a new camera AND some introductory lenses for it.

Nikon's 1 series is a classic example of this issue(as is Sony's FE mount) .. the market is just not strong enough to ensure a decent return on investment in a timely manner for R&D on new lenses, that may ultimately just not sell well.
It's great that Sony has a roadmap of lenses it will bring to market soon .. but that takes time and money. I'm almost totally convinced that (because Sony has been losing money hand over fist over the past few decades!! :D), that the finance department has a greater role in the fact that Sony has so few lenses for the FE mount. The rationale will be something along the lines of "get back some money on what you currently offer before we commit more money to more stuff that may ultimately fail in doing the same!"

I'm sure CaNikon know this, and this is the major sticking point.
If they were to create a new mount type(least likely scenario), then they would have to create a perfectly usable adapter system for the legacy lenses out there. If not, the probability is quite high that the new system is going be a commercial failure.

Remember that all these guys are in it for the money .. pure and simple. They're not in it for the technical achievement, or to give us(the consumer) what we want.

sorry .. long post again :o

[Arg]

Thanks for the long post. Lots to think about! [emoji5]

[arthurking83]

Strangely(and explains why I have a specific interest in the topic) is based around future compatibility with what I've currently invested in.
For the immediate future, I can't see myself updating the D800E unless something really uber, in terms of ability, pops up.
eg. if a potential D900 type camera has eye tracking focus point selection feature .. or maybe 100Mp sensor with similar or better ISO qualities to what I currently have access too.

But if this camera comes in with an EVF, and the mount type is not the same F type(ie. shorter flange distance) and my lenses can't operate fully with an adapter .. then obviously my past investment in gear has been a waste(in a manner of speaking).

Whilst it's obvious that the old lenses will still work ok with my old cameras, I don't buy a new camera(for it's uber features) to keep using the older cameras!

So if a mirrorless Nikon comes to market with a feature I'm highly interested in, but my lenses can't fully work with an adapter(ie. Nikon's current FT-1, Nikon F-mount to Nikon 1 mount adapter) then I obviously have to start an investment in lenses all over again.
Obviously not good for me. But potentially good for Nikon(although highly unlikely that they will get much out of me for lenses).

[Arg]

I appreciate that big kit DSLR owners are kind of stuck, if a better lighter smaller alternative comes along, that fully meets real needs, but means changing the whole kit. They will be the last to leave, and longest to argue against the change. I just hope one of them remembers to turn off the lights. [emoji41]

OTOH people who are perfectly happy with DSLR, why even be here discussing the new wave? Just keep driving in a straight line, stop looking down the alleys. Nothing for you here. [emoji5]

[ameerat42]

That sounds a bit 1 + 1ish, Arg. I notice you open with an "if", then speculate about their behaviour, and conclude there's no hope for them.

I have a digital SLR (and a number of compacts). I'm sure any type of camera has its advantages. Will you get me a mirrorless? There ya go. Ta.:D

[ricktas]

I appreciate that big kit DSLR owners are kind of stuck, if a better lighter smaller alternative comes along, that fully meets real needs, but means changing the whole kit. They will be the last to leave, and longest to argue against the change. I just hope one of them remembers to turn off the lights. [emoji41]

OTOH people who are perfectly happy with DSLR, why even be here discussing the new wave? Just keep driving in a straight line, stop looking down the alleys. Nothing for you here. [emoji5]

But you seem to be assuming that to take up these 'new' cameras, people have to leave their 'old' cameras. I am considering a move into this equipment segment as I see benefits for using smaller, high quality, gear for some genre. Particularly Street Photography, which I want to explore more. Smaller gear tends to be less obtrusive and I can probably get away with aiming a smaller bit of kit at someone in public, than I could a D800 with nice 70-200 lens attached. Yet I would probably not take a small mirrorless out to stick on a tripod and get a lovely sweeping wide angle sunset over water.

I see these new cameras as an adjunct, not a swap! Both DSLR and mirrorless more compact models can co-exist side by side. I think those suggesting the mirrorless is the future are forgetting that more than one format can exist peacefully side-by-side.

[farmmax]

I with Rick on this one. I'm a DSLR user, but with some arthritis in my hands, the mirrorless has great appeal. I can't see my DSLR going out the door, because it can do things a miirrorless cannot. I'll keep it for those tasks, but would move to a mirrorless when I need to be more mobile. I'd particularly like it for street photography also, because my DSLR just attracts too much attention.

[MissionMan]

I appreciate that big kit DSLR owners are kind of stuck, if a better lighter smaller alternative comes along, that fully meets real needs, but means changing the whole kit. They will be the last to leave, and longest to argue against the change. I just hope one of them remembers to turn off the lights. [emoji41]

OTOH people who are perfectly happy with DSLR, why even be here discussing the new wave? Just keep driving in a straight line, stop looking down the alleys. Nothing for you here. [emoji5]

Because mirrorless doesn't actually match DSLR performance and doesn't have the selection of lenses. That's a reality, it doesn't. It's not a subjective opinion based thing.

Until such time as it does, people will keep driving in a straight line, because like me, they're driving in a BMW and the only side roads they see have potholes. Most of them are happy to take a detour, but the detours are all dirt at the moment.

[bcys1961]

Because mirrorless doesn't actually match DSLR performance and doesn't have the selection of lenses. That's a reality, it doesn't. It's not a subjective opinion based thing.

Until such time as it does, people will keep driving in a straight line, because like me, they're driving in a BMW and the only side roads they see have potholes. Most of them are happy to take a detour, but the detours are all dirt at the moment.

While I potter along the pothole filled side of the road in my second rate Olympus OMD ,eating your BMW dust can you give me some reading material on what aspects of my vehicle are not as good as your BMW. And also how you take into account the quality of the driver .

[MissionMan]

While I potter along the pothole filled side of the road in my second rate Olympus OMD ,eating your BMW dust can you give me some reading material on what aspects of my vehicle are not as good as your BMW. And also how you take into account the quality of the driver .

Driver always has an impact. I saw a professional race driver do faster lap times around nuremburgh in a van than the topgear team in a BMW.

But to answer your question, the autofocus system with sports. Simple.

Show me what mirrorless offering will give comparative results to my D750 with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, let alone a D4S

[bcys1961]

Driver always has an impact. I saw a professional race driver do faster lap times around nuremburgh in a van than the topgear team in a BMW.

But to answer your question, the autofocus system with sports. Simple.

Show me what mirrorless offering will give comparative results to my D750 with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, let alone a D4S

That's good. I don't do sports!

[arthurking83]

I'm the same as Brad .. with a possible difference in that I'll be thrown around in my incapable 4WD on those pot holed side tracks.
I hate the main roads, and only use them because I have too, or I want to get back quickly.

The other point about most mirrorless(apart from the Sony A7's potential) .. is for something like wider angle(FOV) with shallow DOF.

My main pet hate of smaller formats is and has always been a loss of subject separation for many fields of view. About the only FOV equivalent you can achieve a similarly shallow DOF is the 50-ish mm FOV, where some lens makers offer a fast ish aperture 25mm lens.

A major premise of a smaller camera system, which may or may not also include a smaller sensor is that the the system is small.
If you attempt to create a lens with a similar FOV + equally capable shallow DOF, you just end up with a huge lens, on a small body! .. thus missing the entire point of the small size of the system to begin with.

ps. you don't need to do sports photography to see the benefit of the speedy focus acquisition times that a SLR system is capable of.
Any situation(sports included) will benefit from speedier AF reaction. Some need it more than others. Others don't really care too much.

As for the driver .. no matter which vehicle they drive(small sensor mirrorless, or large sensor DSLR) .. there are technical points that simply can't be ignored.
Equally good drivers exist in all forms of photography .. as well as equally bad drivers, I guess.

As for the Sony A7 .. again mentioned in my reply above too .. while it is a large sensor format compact camera, it's problem is a distinct lack of lenses which allow for technical equality at least in one sense.

Speed of AF will eventually come to mirrorless cameras too. Apparently they're getting better and better with every iteration of model. In short time they will have at least caught up to SLR type AF systems(if SLR AF systems stagnate).

ps. I don't think the die hard DSLR user simply argues against change. I consider myself a die hard SLR type users.
I don't like change for the sake of change .. change HAS to bring with it only advantages. For me(or more accurately to my eyes) the EVF screen is a backward step to usability as of current technology levels.
When the first EVF/mirrorless type system came to market, I was probably the first to wax lyrically for it's potential to change the way we use the camera.
Liveview did that for me actually .. but I've yet to see any EVF that offers a better alternative to a well made and setup OVF.

[davsv1]

Show me what mirrorless offering will give comparative results to my D750 with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, let alone a D4S
Can you show me a photo you can take with your dslr that I can't take with my mirrorless..any subject will do.

[MissionMan]

Can you show me a photo you can take with your dslr that I can't take with my mirrorless..any subject will do.

What camera do you have? The reason I ask is that everything on mirrorless is about compromise. The only compromise with DSLR is size and even that is getting smaller.

What I mean by this is that autofocus on mirrorless is a mixed bag. If you want low light focus, you lose dynamic range, if you want fast autofocus, its contrast based. Most mirrorless focus won't work on objects moving directly towards the camera, or low contrast situations like kitesurfing where the 3D focus system on a DSLR is also confused (but the normal 9 or 21 point still works). Think of an example like kids running on a lawn with the child running towards the camera.

But on the issue of examples, here is a quick one. It's not a great photo because it was contrived for the purpose of showing the dynamic range. The top half is the photo out of the box, the bottom half is the photo with 5 stops adjustment in lightroom.

http://atholhill.smugmug.com/D750-Review/i-42rH6C4/0/O/DSC_1308%20together.jpg

[swifty]

To be fair, the example you showed MM is of the ability of the sensor. Nothing really stops the same sensor being used in a mirrorless camera. And I would hazard a guess that the A7s or one of the other A7 series could do similar/same/better.

But in practice, there probably are photos that a DSLR can do that a mirrorless can't (at this current point in time).
Think 600mm FOV and 800mm FOV wildlife and sports shots. Of course mirrorless can't do these by virtue that lens of these telephoto calibre with AF don't exist in the mirrorless realms yet. We get to see a 300/4 (600mm FOV) in action soon for m43 though.
But more accurately it's not that mirrorless can't do any of this. It's just that currently the keeper rate would be much better with a DSLR rig. When mirrorless AF catchup/exceeds current DSLR, I doubt any wildlife/sports photographer wouldn't make the switch or at least experiment/run dual systems.
Whilst I've seen BIf photos from mirrorless cameras of subjects flying across the frame, I've yet to see one approaching the camera, like an eagle at the moment of striking a prey or something similar with great subject isolation. Again, not saying mirrorless can't do it, but if u shot those subjects right now would u pick any mirrorless system over current DSLR?

- - - Updated - - -

In relation to the earlier post about Samsung, here's some commentary that is relevant:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/how-internet-news-distorts.html
Bear in mind Thom is a Nikon guru and no commentary can be considered truly unbiased but I think Thom's usually pretty good. He also uses quite a number of mirrorless systems, m43 moreso, so he does know his way around mirrorless systems pretty well.

[MissionMan]

To be fair, the example you showed MM is of the ability of the sensor. Nothing really stops the same sensor being used in a mirrorless camera. And I would hazard a guess that the A7s or one of the other A7 series could do similar/same/better.

But in practice, there probably are photos that a DSLR can do that a mirrorless can't (at this current point in time).
Think 600mm FOV and 800mm FOV wildlife and sports shots. Of course mirrorless can't do these by virtue that lens of these telephoto calibre with AF don't exist in the mirrorless realms yet. We get to see a 300/4 (600mm FOV) in action soon for m43 though.
But more accurately it's not that mirrorless can't do any of this. It's just that currently the keeper rate would be much better with a DSLR rig. When mirrorless AF catchup/exceeds current DSLR, I doubt any wildlife/sports photographer wouldn't make the switch or at least experiment/run dual systems.
Whilst I've seen BIf photos from mirrorless cameras of subjects flying across the frame, I've yet to see one approaching the camera, like an eagle at the moment of striking a prey or something similar with great subject isolation. Again, not saying mirrorless can't do it, but if u shot those subjects right now would u pick any mirrorless system over current DSLR?

- - - Updated - - -

In relation to the earlier post about Samsung, here's some commentary that is relevant:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/how-internet-news-distorts.html
Bear in mind Thom is a Nikon guru and no commentary can be considered truly unbiased but I think Thom's usually pretty good. He also uses quite a number of mirrorless systems, m43 moreso, so he does know his way around mirrorless systems pretty well.

But the phase detection systems in mirrorless cameras are built into the sensor so it is all about the sensor. The point is, they either can't do low light focus, or when they do, they don't have dynamic range. It's autofocus related as far as I am concerned, it goes back to compromise.

[bcys1961]

I just think the discussion is largely irrelevant. As you have already said the driver is more important than the car. Vision trumps gear anytime.

[MissionMan]

I just think the discussion is largely irrelevant. As you have already said the driver is more important than the car. Vision trumps gear anytime.

How so? This whole portion of the discussion was started by Arg commenting that DSLR fans were stuck in the dinosaur world one or two pages back). The response was simply that at this point in time, there are very few, if not any things that mirrorless does better than DSLR's. At some point they may, but right now, people using DSLR's users are not compromising anything other than size by using the system.

[bcys1961]

Well I don't really agree with that view either . Everyone buys their camera at different points over time depending on their budget , what the current technology is , what their needs are etc.... Some upgrade over time, some don't. Regardless of if you buy mirrorless or DSLR , the fact is the quality of most camera's far exceeds the skill of most people using them so the technical specs become largely irrelevant. Learning to see the world and then being able to convey what you see to a viewer through composition and lighting is more important than what gear you use , as most gear will do the job.

[davsv1]

But the phase detection systems in mirrorless cameras are built into the sensor so it is all about the sensor. The point is, they either can't do low light focus, or when they do, they don't have dynamic range. It's autofocus related as far as I am concerned, it goes back to compromise.
Well I've never shot -5 intentionally and can't see why I would ( any example of why I would in real life?). As Swifty said that is more about sensor anyway. As far as auto focus goes, yes I can't focus in complete dark without the focus assist lamp, in dim light with the right lens I can though and whats more with my EVF I can actually see what I'm focusing on. And no, my auto focus is nothing compared to a 1dx or D3 but then mine didn't cost $5000+ body only either , it only means I will have to work a lot harder and won't get as many keepers but I can still take photos.
The point is there is nothing practical that mirrorless can't do it just may not be as easy as dslr and the more difficult the situation the more expensive your gear needs to be, how does you D750 stack up to a 1dx auto focus?
As far as lens selection goes mirrorless (m4/3 anyway) has lenses from 7mm (14 in 135 ) to 300 f2.8 (600 in 135)currently available in native mount or 1 + adapter, also a wide array of 3rd party lenses for cine or standard use are available plus if you like to get an OM adapter you have access to all the OM lenses ever produced, tilt shift, fish eye, bellows, microsopes etc. Oh and there is still a 50-500 sigma in 4/3 to be had second hand from time to time.

[Ian Brewster]

There is now an eBook "The Lesser Photographer" just out. A read might make much of this discussion of lesser importance? :rolleyes:

[bcys1961]

There is now an eBook "The Lesser Photographer" just out. A read might make much of this discussion of lesser importance? :rolleyes:

Yes it's a great book. As he says , the extra 2 or 3 thousand you plan to spend on the latest piece of gear would probably be much better spent on some plane tickets to an awe inspiring place where you can take photos with your existing gear , or just some workshops on how to improve your skill at using what you have got already.

[arthurking83]

..... how does you D750 stack up to a 1dx auto focus?
.....

Actually .. you picked the wrong (Nikon)camera to highlight a point here.
D750 is about as good as Nikon gets(if it gets it right! :p).
D750 uses the latest Nikon AF tech .. which is D4 based. Also used in the D810 too.

How this compares to the D1x .. I'd say the D1x should be better going by the specs it provides(F/2.8 accuracy, uses all cross type pattern across all points, etc).


I think the thread is taking a turn for the worst(as these format philosophical discussions tend to do).

It's all relevant to a degree(the differences of opinion), but we should try to maintain a sense of respect for each others needs.(before it gets out of hand, that is.)

[Arg]

But to answer your question, the autofocus system with sports. Simple.

Show me what mirrorless offering will give comparative results to my D750 with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, let alone a D4S

A Lumix GH4 with equivalent lens would be comparable, except it would be shooting at about twice the framerate of the mid-speed D750.

- - - Updated - - -


ps. you don't need to do sports photography to see the benefit of the speedy focus acquisition times that a SLR system is capable of.
Any situation(sports included) will benefit from speedier AF reaction. Some need it more than others. Others don't really care too much.

If I recall the marketing claims correctly, m43 cameras have been the world's fastest at AF acquisition for some years now, going back to early Olympus PEN days. Please do keep up!

- - - Updated - - -


But the phase detection systems in mirrorless cameras are built into the sensor so it is all about the sensor. The point is, they either can't do low light focus, or when they do, they don't have dynamic range. It's autofocus related as far as I am concerned, it goes back to compromise.

Stick to CDAF if you want low light AF. My humble GX7 can AF in lower light than any Nikon DSLR ever made.

- - - Updated - - -


at this point in time, there are very few, if not any things that mirrorless does better than DSLR's. At some point they may, but right now, people using DSLR's users are not compromising anything other than size by using the system.

That's just wrong. I don't think you did your research.

[MissionMan]

Well I've never shot -5 intentionally and can't see why I would ( any example of why I would in real life?). As Swifty said that is more about sensor anyway. As far as auto focus goes, yes I can't focus in complete dark without the focus assist lamp, in dim light with the right lens I can though and whats more with my EVF I can actually see what I'm focusing on. And no, my auto focus is nothing compared to a 1dx or D3 but then mine didn't cost $5000+ body only either , it only means I will have to work a lot harder and won't get as many keepers but I can still take photos.
The point is there is nothing practical that mirrorless can't do it just may not be as easy as dslr and the more difficult the situation the more expensive your gear needs to be, how does you D750 stack up to a 1dx auto focus?
As far as lens selection goes mirrorless (m4/3 anyway) has lenses from 7mm (14 in 135 ) to 300 f2.8 (600 in 135)currently available in native mount or 1 + adapter, also a wide array of 3rd party lenses for cine or standard use are available plus if you like to get an OM adapter you have access to all the OM lenses ever produced, tilt shift, fish eye, bellows, microsopes etc. Oh and there is still a 50-500 sigma in 4/3 to be had second hand from time to time.

You obviously never shot a photo into the sun. Or used bracketing. Because essentially that is what we are talking about. The ability to do bracketing without having to take multiple photos. that's dynamic range. Go out, meter for highlights and bring up the shadows.

On the issue of $5000+ body, I'm not sure why you guys keep thinking the only bodies that can beat mirrorless are the D4s and 1Dx. The 5D, D800 and D750 all have the same autofocus systems. The D750 is a third of the cost of a new D4s/1DX and almost as good. In fact, the D750 can focus in lower light than the D4S and 1DX. The point is, as mirrorless is improving, so is DSLR. As DSLR's get better autofocus systems at the top end, the bottom end gets better and the lower level full frame cameras that go for $2000 have autofocus systems that are very bit as good as the top of the range cameras from a couple of years ago.


A Lumix GH4 with equivalent lens would be comparable, except it would be shooting at about twice the framerate of the mid-speed D750.

- - - Updated - - -



If I recall the marketing claims correctly, m43 cameras have been the world's fastest at AF acquisition for some years now, going back to early Olympus PEN days. Please do keep up!

- - - Updated - - -



Stick to CDAF if you want low light AF. My humble GX7 can AF in lower light than any Nikon DSLR ever made.

- - - Updated - - -



That's just wrong. I don't think you did your research.

A GH4 still wouldn't be as accurate in low contrast environments or with an object moving directly towards the camera.

The marketing claims talk about "fastest autofocus" have a minor little disclaimer you may want to read. I.e. They exclude DSLR's from their claim. In this case, you may want to keep up. It says "1 Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C image sensor as of February 12, 2014"

As mentioned, the cameras that have good low light focus still don't have good dynamic range. I.e. they're a compromise. Show me one camera that can autofocus at -3ev and pull 5 stops of shadows out (clean without them looking like they are ISO56000. There are none.

[Arg]

The marketing claims talk about "fastest autofocus" have a minor little disclaimer you may want to read. I.e. They exclude DSLR's from their claim. In this case, you may want to keep up. It says "1[COLOR=#555555][FONT=Helvetica] Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C image sensor as of February 12, 2014"



Please explain how that excludes DSLRs. [emoji15] Seems to include most models IMHO.[emoji5]

[ricktas]

Ultimately if you have 20MP m43 sensor, and a FF SLR sensor, both of 20MP, with all other aspects being equal, the DSLR sensor has a huge light gathering advantage and will have better low light performance. No matter how advanced an M43 sensor gets, the physical size of the sensor will always result in a disadvantage over a crop sensor or FF sensor.

Yes there have been great improvements in tech in recent years, but nothing can overcome the physical constraints of pixel site size.

[MissionMan]

Please explain how that excludes DSLRs. [emoji15] Seems to include most models IMHO.[emoji5]

It excludes all the full frame ones which are the ones that have the best autofocus systems and exactly the ones we are talking about (including the D750). But nice change of topic on the issues of not keeping up to date.

[Arg]

The quote you found would have included the 7D......

[arthurking83]

A Lumix GH4 with equivalent lens would be comparable, except it would be shooting at about twice the framerate of the mid-speed D750.

- - - Updated - - -



If I recall the marketing claims correctly, m43 cameras have been the world's fastest at AF acquisition for some years now, going back to early Olympus PEN days. Please do keep up!

- - - Updated - - -


....

I mentioned earlier that published facts and figures aren't really worth the stuff they're written on unless they actually mean something tangible!

Marketing claims aren't a source of fact .. they are a means to increase the likelyhood of sales.


On the topic of the GH4's apparent frame rate advantage, which on the whole sounds like a pretty good camera(if not for the high price!)


The GH4 is rated as being able to shoot at 12 frames per second without live view or focus

and


The camera does a pretty good job of re-focusing on a moving subject. Sadly we couldn't get the camera to lock onto the rider as a subject, which meant we weren't able to properly test the camera's focus tracking.

Quoted from DPR's GH4 review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4/8)

What use are 12 frames per second if you can't lock focus onto the subject of interest?

once again .. don't concentrate on those 'marketing claims" .. reality is a much better indicator of the usefulness of a feature.

ie. given the option of a camera capable of 20fps but with with dubious AF tracking ability, or one that's limited to only 6fps with a more positive AF tracking ability .. I'd take the 6fps camera any day.

I'm sure Nikon could tweak the D750 to provide 12fps too, just as it does with the D4s with the added bonus of fill time AF.
The dilemma is that who would buy a D4s if the D750 has similar performance?
(once again the situation is not hardware/mechanical, but one of marketing/sales .. in this instance Nikon's).

Note that the Canon 7D does something like 10fps again, with full time AF. Canon has a different marketing approach to Nikon.

In this comparison(GH4 vs D750) the ability isn't one of one type of camera relative to another type, but simply one of strategic marketing points.

For high fps ability the crown currently goes to Nikon's 1 v3!
It does 20fps + the ability to focus during this time. No other camera comes close to this sort of performance.
All reviews of this camera seem to indicate it's about the only mirrorless camera that can AF as quickly as a DSLR.
(all indications are that this 1 series of Nikon cameras appear to be more of a testbed for Nikon to research OCPDAF systems, which is apparently much easier to do on a small sensor format)

Samsung's NX1 also has a high 15fps continuous rate. As yet I haven't seen any review that confirms if AF is available during high speed shooting.

As for CDAF .. don't forget that all current DSLRs have the added benefit of Liveview! (many seem to forget this for some reason).

Like MM said .. (almost), there isn't all that much a mirrorless camera can do that a DSLR won't be able too .. which includes CDAF!!

Even the once difficult realm of compactness isn't an exclusive one for mirrorless cameras either.

Compare the size of a D5500 to that of a say an Olympus OMD-EM5. Apart from the thickness of the Nikon, necessary for the flange focal distance, the D550 isn't all that much larger than, the once, diminutive EM5.
The question then becomes .. why are mirrorless cameras so freaking huge! :D

[MissionMan]

The quote you found would have included the 7D......

Which is still not a full frame and a 4 year old body, its replacement having only been released now.

[Mary Anne]

Opps MM you got that wrong the 7D is five years old and the 7DMK11 was released last year September actually.

[MissionMan]

True on the 5 years but It was announced September but availability was only November for preorders which is why I said now. Recently probably would have been a better term, but either way, comparing autofocus with a 5 year old camera isn't exactly a fair reflection.

[Mary Anne]

Yes that was for Australia orders as I picked mine up on November 3rd. No recently would not have been my choice of the correct word.
You must be tired of all this researching you have been doing today, so I will wish you a restful evening.

[Nick Cliff]

The M 4/3 system is great for grabbing quick landscape photos and macro photography with classic lenses in my experience.For birds flying or very low light perhaps that is not their forte.Thank god I don't have to get involved in this resolution war, in reality there is no point printing my photos now, and am happy with the resolution of the Olympus EP-5 for personal use.I enjoy photography with all manual lenses, and have given away my auto focus lenses as the tactile experience is for my purposes great.For old school photography this system is fun, ( nickhcliff on flickr has all manual lenses photos only), regards Nick.

[Arg]

Mods, please help keep this thread on topic and remove all the DSLR discussion. It is unwarranted and unwelcome: as the OP says, "Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. ". Instead of being a convivial meet-and-greet space for our small community of mirrorless fans, to share what they like and how to get the best from their cameras, the thread has become a war zone, primarily initiated by DSLR lovers who want to preach their choice, putting mirrorless users on the defensive -- which usually results in the second person getting into trouble. Which would be unfortunate and unfair.

Or, if the DSLR posts are deemed to be important posts for some reason, please open another thread under 'Cameras' called "DSLR beats mirrorless in every way except weight", and move all the DSLR posts there.

Pro-mirrorless posts and banter are of course welcome and will continue to be.

[swifty]

As mentioned, the cameras that have good low light focus still don't have good dynamic range. I.e. they're a compromise. Show me one camera that can autofocus at -3ev and pull 5 stops of shadows out (clean without them looking like they are ISO56000. There are none.
You are right. I can't think of any that will do that so anecdotally there appears to be no examples currently. And I won't argue that it is possible or impossible either because I simply don't have evidence either way however I'm just not convinced that having good DR and good contrast AF (or on-sensor PDAF) sensitivity in low light are exclusive. I'm not talking about tracking btw, just acquisition in low light.

I speculate however that this is more of a design decision for sensor specs based on practical shooting.

When autofocusing in -3EV levels of light you're not likely to be shooting at base ISO where there are distinct DR advantage to cameras such as D8xx, D750. You're likely to be pushing the ISO limits and DR at high ISO is a different story where cameras such as D4/s are better. I haven't looked into how the A7s performs exactly but it does AF down to -4EV and is no doubt optimised for high ISO shooting so the high ISO DR may be a different story.
On the tripod, if you do use base ISO in very low light (-3/-4 EV levels), if the DR is that wide then there will be sources of light that will allow less sensitive AF to work.

So whilst your example of shadow lifting is impressive, ISO 100, f8, 1/320 adjusted 5 stops would be ISO 100, f1.4, 1/320. Not exactly low light levels and not testing the lower range of AF sensitivity of a D750.

So not arguing one way or another but let's just say the jury's still out on this one IMO.

[ricktas]

Mods, please help keep this thread on topic and remove all the DSLR discussion. It is unwarranted and unwelcome: as the OP says, "Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. ". Instead of being a convivial meet-and-greet space for our small community of mirrorless fans, to share what they like and how to get the best from their cameras, the thread has become a war zone, primarily initiated by DSLR lovers who want to preach their choice, putting mirrorless users on the defensive -- which usually results in the second person getting into trouble. Which would be unfortunate and unfair.

Or, if the DSLR posts are deemed to be important posts for some reason, please open another thread under 'Cameras' called "DSLR beats mirrorless in every way except weight", and move all the DSLR posts there.

Pro-mirrorless posts and banter are of course welcome and will continue to be.

Any discussion about the various gear benefits, comparable to other gear is always relevant. It is only an issue when people denigrate others for their posts, information and opinions. All members are entitled to post in this forum, it is not the exclusive domain of only those who have mirrorless gear. Reading through the thread, the DSLR comparisons are relevant. The only ones who seems to see it as a war zone is those getting defensive, rather than considering the information provided as being worthwhile to the whole discussion. There is a lot of difference between information sharing and preaching!

How about keeping the discussion about the gear, not comments about members?

[swifty]

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Sony-A7S-versus-Nikon-D4s___975_949_945

Going by DXO it appears the DR cross over point is between 400 and 800.
So both the D4s and A7s beat the D750 for DR above ISO 800.
Whilst I haven't used any of these 3 cameras, based on this one aspect alone it would appear Sony might be the best pick if I were to be operating AF in very low light situations shooting contrasty subjects.

[davsv1]

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Sony-A7S-versus-Nikon-D4s___975_949_945

Going by DXO it appears the DR cross over point is between 400 and 800.
So both the D4s and A7s beat the D750 for DR above ISO 800.
Whilst I haven't used any of these 3 cameras, based on this one aspect alone it would appear Sony might be the best pick if I were to be operating AF in very low light situations shooting contrasty subjects.
Or maybe this one might trump them all http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2014/11/phase-one-series-uses-alpa-body-to-make-mirrorless-medium-format-camera-updated and it is "mirrorless":tog:

[swifty]

Missed that bit of news. Lets see what happens in 2015.

[MissionMan]

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Sony-A7S-versus-Nikon-D4s___975_949_945

Going by DXO it appears the DR cross over point is between 400 and 800.
So both the D4s and A7s beat the D750 for DR above ISO 800.
Whilst I haven't used any of these 3 cameras, based on this one aspect alone it would appear Sony might be the best pick if I were to be operating AF in very low light situations shooting contrasty subjects.

And it's also only 12MP in a full frame sensor. Who is going to buy a 12MP camera in 2015 that only does 5fps and is still large because it sports a full frame sensor and offers slow AF in low light? The D4s and D750 would suit pretty much anything but my guess is the camera is aimed at videographer's due to the 4K video.


Mods, please help keep this thread on topic and remove all the DSLR discussion. It is unwarranted and unwelcome: as the OP says, "Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. ". Instead of being a convivial meet-and-greet space for our small community of mirrorless fans, to share what they like and how to get the best from their cameras, the thread has become a war zone, primarily initiated by DSLR lovers who want to preach their choice, putting mirrorless users on the defensive -- which usually results in the second person getting into trouble. Which would be unfortunate and unfair.

Or, if the DSLR posts are deemed to be important posts for some reason, please open another thread under 'Cameras' called "DSLR beats mirrorless in every way except weight", and move all the DSLR posts there.

Pro-mirrorless posts and banter are of course welcome and will continue to be.

Actually, I think the DSLR members were being very civil (or at least I was) in the discussions until this post from you arrived. My posts relating to DSLR's being better were actually raised in response to this because irrespective of skill level, your post seems to insinuate that mirrorless are currently better and those who are using DSLR's are simply doing so because they are stuck with their investment rather than by choice. You then suggested I read more of the marketing material from one of the mirrorless manufacturers (which I did only to find out you missed the footnote).


I appreciate that big kit DSLR owners are kind of stuck, if a better lighter smaller alternative comes along, that fully meets real needs, but means changing the whole kit. They will be the last to leave, and longest to argue against the change. I just hope one of them remembers to turn off the lights. [emoji41]

OTOH people who are perfectly happy with DSLR, why even be here discussing the new wave? Just keep driving in a straight line, stop looking down the alleys. Nothing for you here. [emoji5]

[davsv1]

Ultimately if you have 20MP m43 sensor, and a FF SLR sensor, both of 20MP, with all other aspects being equal, the DSLR sensor has a huge light gathering advantage and will have better low light performance. No matter how advanced an M43 sensor gets, the physical size of the sensor will always result in a disadvantage over a crop sensor or FF sensor.

Yes there have been great improvements in tech in recent years, but nothing can overcome the physical constraints of pixel site size.
Well the initial discussion was irrelevant of sensor size, it was mirrorless/dslr and I never claimed that the 4/3 sensor was as good image wise in low light as a FF sensor. However a FF mirrorless will have just as good a result as FF dslr as far as image quality /dynamic range goes. Correct?

[ricktas]

Well the initial discussion was irrelevant of sensor size, it was mirrorless/dslr and I never claimed that the 4/3 sensor was as good image wise in low light as a FF sensor. However a FF mirrorless will have just as good a result as FF dslr as far as image quality /dynamic range goes. Correct?

Yes, correct. My post was just to clear up some discussion regarding sensor size. My post was not directly aimed at anything you stated, but a contribution to the overall discussion taking place in this thread.

[swifty]

The M 4/3 system is great for grabbing quick landscape photos and macro photography with classic lenses in my experience.For birds flying or very low light perhaps that is not their forte.Thank god I don't have to get involved in this resolution war, in reality there is no point printing my photos now, and am happy with the resolution of the Olympus EP-5 for personal use.I enjoy photography with all manual lenses, and have given away my auto focus lenses as the tactile experience is for my purposes great.For old school photography this system is fun, ( nickhcliff on flickr has all manual lenses photos only), regards Nick.

Hi Nick,
With the other side debates (and I'm certainly guilty of concentrating too much on detail and forgetting the big picture), your post was probably getting lost.

Thanks for sharing your usage style. I'm finding I'm constantly evolving my wants and needs from my m43 setup.
At first I wanted to replicate my prime shooting style with a series of small, fast primes.
I've gradually had a change in opinion and plan to head down the road of all zooms. More precisely getting the trio of Olympus PRO zooms: 7-14/2.8, 12-40/2.8 and 80-150/2.8. I feel this setup runs a nice balance between quality and overall travel weight. Perhaps leaving the 40-150 behind if its not a very photocentric trip.
I feel this should contrast well if I also complete my DSLR setup with a series of fast primes. Both setup does different things.
Unfortunately I'm a long way off from my current ideal setup and won't get there any time soon.

Also unlike you, I'm just no good at MF. I rely completely on the accuracy of my AF and unfortunately won't be able to appreciate the (often) better value MF lenses. I also haven't used an adapter I liked but have yet to try the (very expensive) Metabones ones.

[MissionMan]

Well the initial discussion was irrelevant of sensor size, it was mirrorless/dslr and I never claimed that the 4/3 sensor was as good image wise in low light as a FF sensor. However a FF mirrorless will have just as good a result as FF dslr as far as image quality /dynamic range goes. Correct?

It's probably worth noting that pixel count also has something to do with it (as Ricktas mentioned above) so it's not just the size of the sensor. It's one of the reasons why the A7S is so good at low light. I.e. it's a 12MP camera in a full frame sensor which is very low by today's standards, but offers the benefit of larger pixel site size.

[davsv1]

Hi Nick,
With the other side debates (and I'm certainly guilty of concentrating too much on detail and forgetting the big picture), your post was probably getting lost.

Thanks for sharing your usage style. I'm finding I'm constantly evolving my wants and needs from my m43 setup.
At first I wanted to replicate my prime shooting style with a series of small, fast primes.
I've gradually had a change in opinion and plan to head down the road of all zooms. More precisely getting the trio of Olympus PRO zooms: 7-14/2.8, 12-40/2.8 and 80-150/2.8. I feel this setup runs a nice balance between quality and overall travel weight. Perhaps leaving the 40-150 behind if its not a very photocentric trip.
I feel this should contrast well if I also complete my DSLR setup with a series of fast primes. Both setup does different things.
Unfortunately I'm a long way off from my current ideal setup and won't get there any time soon.

Also unlike you, I'm just no good at MF. I rely completely on the accuracy of my AF and unfortunately won't be able to appreciate the (often) better value MF lenses. I also haven't used an adapter I liked but have yet to try the (very expensive) Metabones ones.
Hi Swifty, I find MF so much easier with the EVF and esp the magnify function ( for macro anyway) I was fine MF in the old days with split prisms but with DSLR OVF I was crap even after I bought a Katzeye focus screen.

[swifty]

And it's also only 12MP in a full frame sensor. Who is going to buy a 12MP camera in 2015 that only does 5fps and is still large because it sports a full frame sensor and offers slow AF in low light? The D4s and D750 would suit pretty much anything but my guess is the camera is aimed at videographer's due to the 4K video.


Well.. not me. But not for the reasons you suggested. 12MP and <5fps are A-OK with me 2015. I was merely raising an example that camera specs may be more of a design decision, driven by practical shooting reasons and the pursuit of better base DR and better AF sensitivity are independent parameters as there doesn't appear to be a large number of shooting scenarios that needs both at the same time.

My view is that as most/all cameras meet the 'good enough' bar for most photographers the higher end ones would become increasingly specialized, but still maintaining an overall 'good enough' level.

[MissionMan]

Well.. not me. But not for the reasons you suggested. 12MP and <5fps are A-OK with me 2015. I was merely raising an example that camera specs may be more of a design decision, driven by practical shooting reasons and the pursuit of better base DR and better AF sensitivity are independent parameters as there doesn't appear to be a large number of shooting scenarios that needs both at the same time.


But where I would argue that it does become relevant, is if you are relying on the sensor to produce the AF as opposed to a dedicated AF engine, are you having to make compromises on your sensor to achieve this? I.e. Produce a lower resolution sensor to achieve low light focus. If the AF and the sensor are two separate components, you could have low light focus with or without high ISO performance and without having to make compromises on your sensor to achieve this.




My view is that as most/all cameras meet the 'good enough' bar for most photographers the higher end ones would become increasingly specialized, but still maintaining an overall 'good enough' level.

Agree. Although I think the upper end cameras are becoming less specialised than they used to be other than the split of video and still, and far more accessible for the masses. I think technology has allowed it to do a complete circle from specialised gear back to "good for pretty much everything".

[Mark L]

Mods, please help keep this thread on topic and remove all the DSLR discussion. It is unwarranted and unwelcome: as the OP says, "Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. ". Instead of being a convivial meet-and-greet space for our small community of mirrorless fans, to share what they like and how to get the best from their cameras, the thread has become a war zone, primarily initiated by DSLR lovers who want to preach their choice, putting mirrorless users on the defensive -- which usually results in the second person getting into trouble. Which would be unfortunate and unfair.

Or, if the DSLR posts are deemed to be important posts for some reason, please open another thread under 'Cameras' called "DSLR beats mirrorless in every way except weight", and move all the DSLR posts there.

Pro-mirrorless posts and banter are of course welcome and will continue to be.
Oh dear.
I can appreciate what your saying
Go and take some photos and post them for CC everyone.
Took this with a ......., do you think it could have been done better with a ......?

[swifty]

But where I would argue that it does become relevant, is if you are relying on the sensor to produce the AF as opposed to a dedicated AF engine, are you having to make compromises on your sensor to achieve this? I.e. Produce a lower resolution sensor to achieve low light focus. If the AF and the sensor are two separate components, you could have low light focus with or without high ISO performance and without having to make compromises on your sensor to achieve this.


I don't know for sure but for CDAF only mirrorless cameras I don't think there are any additions on the sensor since its just analyzing the sensor feed as the lens 'scan' back or forth and stops when the algorithm detects the greatest contrast. It usually overshoots slightly (detecting reduced contrast) and goes back a little before stopping. So I don't think the sensor's being compromised unless the constant feed generates greater heat or something like that.
Or perhaps you're referring to the 7DII (a DSLR ironically) that has a dual pixel AF arrangement where the design has definitely been modified (but compromised??) for live view autofocusing.
As far as I know, only the Olympus E-M1, Nikon 1 V# series and A7 and A7 II have on-sensor PDAF but to what extent they affect or compromise the sensor then I don't know. And we'd only be speculating but I suspect it would be quite small.

But ok, I'll concede that there may be compromises where the AF share the same space as the sensor vs dedicated AF units and leaving the sensor purely for image capture. Although there are also benefits to having AF sensors on the imaging sensor but lets just keep it there to avoid starting another spinoff discussion :D

Actually I kid myself when I said that practical shooting reasons may determine pursuit of various sensor specs.
Likely marketing is the greatest driver. Base DR has the biggest numerical figure and -3EV is better than -2EV so these factors probably drive R&D far more.

[MissionMan]

I don't know for sure but for CDAF only mirrorless cameras I don't think there are any additions on the sensor since its just analyzing the sensor feed as the lens 'scan' back or forth and stops when the algorithm detects the greatest contrast. It usually overshoots slightly (detecting reduced contrast) and goes back a little before stopping. So I don't think the sensor's being compromised unless the constant feed generates greater heat or something like that.
Or perhaps you're referring to the 7DII (a DSLR ironically) that has a dual pixel AF arrangement where the design has definitely been modified (but compromised??) for live view autofocusing.
As far as I know, only the Olympus E-M1, Nikon 1 V# series and A7 and A7 II have on-sensor PDAF but to what extent they affect or compromise the sensor then I don't know. And we'd only be speculating but I suspect it would be quite small.

But ok, I'll concede that there may be compromises where the AF share the same space as the sensor vs dedicated AF units and leaving the sensor purely for image capture. Although there are also benefits to having AF sensors on the imaging sensor but lets just keep it there to avoid starting another spinoff discussion :D

Actually I kid myself when I said that practical shooting reasons may determine pursuit of various sensor specs.
Likely marketing is the greatest driver. Base DR has the biggest numerical figure and -3EV is better than -2EV so these factors probably drive R&D far more.

Sorry, no, what I was trying to say (not sure if I wasn't clear in the original post) is that I would assume the AF has dependencies on what the sensor can "see" based on the ISO capability. I.e. if the camera sensor only goes to ISO1000, I would assume that it would have terrible low light focus as the AF system would have very little information to use from the sensor to determine AF due to the sensor sensitivity, but because the A7S goes to ISO400,000 the sensor would have a phenomenal amount of information (along with better quality of information with less noise to adversely impact the quality of the feed to the AF system) at it's disposal in very little light which would help improve focus in these conditions.

[swifty]

Ic, so what you're saying is that the A7s can only achieve a -4EV lower AF sensitivity by sacrificing DR and pixel count because it is seeing more/cleaner info by doing so?
I don't think its that simplistic. How would you explain the -4EV on the GX7? Surely the GX7's read out is not nearly as clean or abundant as the A7s and the GX7's ISO range is also far more limited.
Do you have references to where CDAF speed/sensitivity range are dependent on sensor attributes such as high ISO performance or sensor DR? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but haven't heard this before so it would be good to read your source.

[MissionMan]

Ic, so what you're saying is that the A7s can only achieve a -4EV lower AF sensitivity by sacrificing DR and pixel count because it is seeing more/cleaner info by doing so?
I don't think its that simplistic. How would you explain the -4EV on the GX7? Surely the GX7's read out is not nearly as clean or abundant as the A7s and the GX7's ISO range is also far more limited.
Do you have references to where CDAF speed/sensitivity range are dependent on sensor attributes such as high ISO performance or sensor DR? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but haven't heard this before so it would be good to read your source.

I don't, it's an assumption I've made because of how the AF works, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I think we're sidetracking the original discussion so I'll create a separate topic for the AF discussions and we can continue there.

[Nick Cliff]

Hi swifty,
I feel if I were to purchase an auto focus lens I would be after a 200 mm or longer focal length for bird photography however the lenses you have mentioned are superb. If you do try manual lenses the Metabones mounts are excellent as are the Polish cieco adapters, having had problems with cheaper mounts(i.e. mount arrives without screws to stop mount rotating, from a supposedly better more expensive Chinese brand) I found the money well spent. I feel with young families these auto focus lenses are the go, as my targets are more stationary the old primes are great, regards Nick.

[swifty]

Thanks Nick
I wasn't aware of the Cieco adapters but with regards to Metabones it's really the speedboosters I was keen on.

Davsv1: this isn't anything too rational but I actually find current MF aids distracting and disconnects the shooting experience for me. It feels great when all you see in the finder is your composition and the image snapping into focus whether AF or MF. Just that currently I have no confidence in my own ability to judge focus manually. For some reason the split prism or the rangefinder method where two image snap together is also quite satisfying and I think there's a MF-aid focusing mode on the X100T (or was it the XT1?) that simulates this. I haven't tried this but if it works well I can see myself trying more MF lenses if it gets implemented in future m43 models.

[Arg]

Very quiet forum here! Surely there are more mirrorless camera users on Ausphotography than this?

Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. This thread can be a kind of register of DSLM (i.e. mirrorless) camera photographers.

I got into it with my new Lumix kit almost a year ago. Sold all my Canon gear and went 'cold turkey'. How about you?

We are the only growing segment in new camera sales right now -- it's time we started talking! [emoji4]

In a desperate attempt to return this thread to the topic I started, ......

Of the contributors to this thread so far, who is using mirrorless cameras as their main shooting kit? There's me....

[arthurking83]

ps. at the risk of taking this thread 'back off course' again .. just one more thing I'd like to point out.

This supposed 'new way' .. 'new tech' .. 'future of' .. or whatever, is actually the old wave, old way, old fashioned way of camera design.

reflex type cameras only really came into practical existence about 100 years after the initial invention.
Officially the mid 30's was when the first reflex SLRs came into being, but they had some serious drawbacks.

I think the Pentax(then Asahi) SLRs in the mid 50s had the modern system of instant return mirrors that made an SLR practical and what we sort of use today.
(there was a low volume, obscure brand manufacturer that invented the instant return mirror, but Asahi/pentax are4 credited with the first mass market high volume camera designed so)

if you view mirrorless cameras in the traditional manner, they are technically an iteration of a view camera .. a possible derivation of a rangefinder as some people like to call them, but more so they are a view camera type, as you see an aerial image of what the sensor sees(albeit remotely) directly through the lens.

Anyhow .. all this is probably not important .. just pedantic, and apologies for taking the thread off your intended direction again.

[bcys1961]

I am . I dropped out when the discussion became one about which format focusses a micro second quicker than the other, which has the greater dynamic range, blah , blah...... . As I said in an earlier post- largely irrelevant to me. I think a much better question to ask than "What was your shutter speed?" or "How quickly does you camera auto-focus on that setting" is " Given the light, what camera settings have you used to try and replicate the emotion you were feeling when you took that photo?".

[Arg]

Thanks Brad --- welcome mate.

Your 'replicate the emotion' question is a good one. I'm not sure how many photographers take the time to even feel the emotion before starting the conscious process of translating it to camera. I've been guilty of that: sometimes not getting past "oh, that could be a good photo" before starting the translation. Being a bit rushed-for-time.

You've also made me think about the raw vs jpeg thing. Not the technical aspects blah blah, superiority blah blah, but the simple fact that some of the camera settings that might best replicate the emotion can only be captured on jpeg at the time. Trying to do it later with PP on raw might be too much of a time delay, too many other photos in between, too hard to remember the emotion and the idea for each photo.

[bcys1961]

Thanks Brad --- welcome mate.

Your 'replicate the emotion' question is a good one. I'm not sure how many photographers take the time to even feel the emotion before starting the conscious process of translating it to camera. I've been guilty of that: sometimes not getting past "oh, that could be a good photo" before starting the translation. Being a bit rushed-for-time.

You've also made me think about the raw vs jpeg thing. Not the technical aspects blah blah, superiority blah blah, but the simple fact that some of the camera settings that might best replicate the emotion can only be captured on jpeg at the time. Trying to do it later with PP on raw might be too much of a time delay, too many other photos in between, too hard to remember the emotion and the idea for each photo.

I shoot raw , as you have more flexibility to create the emotion you are after . Look at the "El Alemain" photo just posted. I shifted the WB to the right in LR5 to give a more golden glow , warmer colours. Also the tint slider shifted to the right put a nice red streak in the sun burst going through the middle of the photo. It was a hot afternoon so I wanted the warm colours. I could shift sliders the other way and give the photo a cool feel, but that's not how I felt at the time . I'm trying to take less photos but put more thought into each one and play with them a little more . Ultimately there are no prizes for taking the most photo's and the best create a mood or emotion in the viewer. I follow a guy called David Duchemin and he is really big on all this stuff , but I'm sure we all have our own "guru's".

[Bennymiata]

The Sony 7 series were supposed to be THE camera that would change the minds of DSLR users and convert them to mirrorless.
However, because of its poor low light focussing, its high price, shutter shake, lack of native lenses and because it is not a pleasant camera to use, it has almost stopped selling.
Most of the people I know that bought a mirrorless, soon tired of the fiddly controls, and lack of direct access for some controls.
A couple of years ago I bought a Canon G1x as I wanted a small camera to carry around instead of my SLR. I've taken around 300 shots with it and it now sits in my cupboard while my DSLRs get a heavy workout.

[Arg]

It's not the camera though. It's us. There are just as many anecdotes from people whose DSLR languishes in the cupboard since they got a DSLM. The real variant is the owners and their likes. That's why there is more than one camera for sale at each price point.

[bcys1961]

The Sony 7 series were supposed to be THE camera that would change the minds of DSLR users and convert them to mirrorless.
However, because of its poor low light focussing, its high price, shutter shake, lack of native lenses and because it is not a pleasant camera to use, it has almost stopped selling.
Most of the people I know that bought a mirrorless, soon tired of the fiddly controls, and lack of direct access for some controls.
A couple of years ago I bought a Canon G1x as I wanted a small camera to carry around instead of my SLR. I've taken around 300 shots with it and it now sits in my cupboard while my DSLRs get a heavy workout.

Maybe that is more a reflection on Sony than the whole mirrorless genre. I'm sure there are some DSLR brands/models that are considered "dogs". I'm happy with my OMD and don't have any of these problems . I don't think there should be any desire to "convert" users , just a desire to open up new markets to those who have not yet committed to any particular brand or type of camera.

[ricktas]

I am awaiting the announcement of the Nikon1 J5, which is supposed to happen (if rumours are to be believed) around 12th February, as the J5 is supposed be Nikon's foray into the full-frame mirrorless market.

[swifty]

Does 50:50 count? At one stage I would say mirrorless had graduated to become my main rig but it's roughly half-half these days as I enjoy the perks of each camera type.

[ricktas]

It's not the camera though. It's us. There are just as many anecdotes from people whose DSLR languishes in the cupboard since they got a DSLM. The real variant is the owners and their likes. That's why there is more than one camera for sale at each price point.

Arg; after 4 1/2 years of AP membership and 362 posts, perhaps you could post your first photo on the site, so we can see how good you really are with this gear? You keep telling us how great it is but we are not getting to see the proof.

[Arg]

Thanks for the invitation, Rick, but my photos will never prove anything about my gear. That's not why I take them, either.

[MissionMan]

I am awaiting the announcement of the Nikon1 J5, which is supposed to happen (if rumours are to be believed) around 12th February, as the J5 is supposed be Nikon's foray into the full-frame mirrorless market.

If they go with a full frame sensor, I assume they would provide the same mount as their DSLR gear which in turn may open the door to a wider group of users. It may also promote the take on of buyers looking for a second smaller body who don't want to invest in more glass or existing DSLR users who want to replace their gear with something smaller without reinvesting in lenses. The carry of a smaller body would work well for the smaller primes.

[Arg]

50:50 definitely counts, @swifty! Welcome to the club! (you know what I mean)

So far it's me, Brad and swifty. There must be more?

[ricktas]

Thanks for the invitation, Rick, but my photos will never prove anything about my gear. That's not why I take them, either.

So what you are saying is you will argue the benefits of your gear, but you won't show us the very reason for owning photography gear in the first place?

[bcys1961]

50:50 definitely counts, @swifty! Welcome to the club! (you know what I mean)

So far it's me, Brad and swifty. There must be more?

Must admit , I'm with Rick on this one Arg. Can't quite see the point of being on a photography forum and "in the club" if you don't post a few photo's every now and then . Sounds a bit Groucho Marx - refusing to participate in a club that will accept you as a member . Also I'm not out to "prove anything" and I don't think you should be either . Just enjoy whatever gear you have and post a few photo's.

[ricktas]

If they go with a full frame sensor, I assume they would provide the same mount as their DSLR gear which in turn may open the door to a wider group of users. It may also promote the take on of buyers looking for a second smaller body who don't want to invest in more glass or existing DSLR users who want to replace their gear with something smaller without reinvesting in lenses. The carry of a smaller body would work well for the smaller primes.

Agree. My D800 and D3 look kinda odd with the little 50mm 1.8 on the front, and even stranger with the lensbaby.

[Arg]

Arg; after 4 1/2 years of AP membership and 362 posts, perhaps you could post your first photo on the site, so we can see how good you really are with this gear? You keep telling us how great it is but we are not getting to see the proof.
I would have to go back in time to do that. I posted my first photo on the site years ago. It was later deleted, not by me. I later entered into a comp. It was rejected, wrongly IMO but hey the owner's decision is final. I accept that but I don't bang my head on brick walls. Not doing that again.

[ricktas]

I would have to go back in time to do that. I posted my first photo on the site years ago. It was later deleted, not by me. I later entered into a comp. It was rejected, wrongly IMO but hey the owner's decision is final. I accept that but I don't bang my head on brick walls. Not doing that again.

Your competition entry was disqualified cause you entered a colour photo into a monochrome competition, just as I advised you via personal message at the time. You even replied at the time that you were "comfortable that your ruling is final".

I am not sure what you problem is but you obviously have an issue with a few people on this site, me included by the seems of it, so perhaps you would be better off on another site?

[Arg]

I don't know why you say that. I have made a simple and well justified decision not to post images after repeated bad experiences.

However, having made that decision, and happily contributing to the site in other ways, I'm being targeted. It's unwarranted.

[ricktas]

I don't know why you say that. I have made a simple and well justified decision not to post images after repeated bad experiences.

However, having made that decision, and happily contributing to the site in other ways, I'm being targeted. It's unwarranted.

In what way are you being targeted? Simply requesting that you show us some of your photography, to support your views on you gear, is not targeting you, in my opinion. It is merely a request. This site is a forum, people are always going to debate others opinions and views, that is what the name forum means. In any debate people will request proof of claims made by others, which was why I asked that you start showing us some photos. The signs of a healthy debate are getting others to prove their points of view, as long as it doesn't degrade to personal remarks about other participants.

No one has said you were thoughtless, that you are not keeping up, or other personal comments. Everyone is discussing the subject in this thread, presenting their various views, and in some cases backed by technical information etc. No one else has demanded that those who do not own a mirrorless camera not contribute. I am not sure how that is targeting you? Perhaps you are perceiving yourself being targeted, because others are offering rebuttal, or disagreeing with you, or requesting you provide more proof to support your statements?

You have obviously, for a reason long past, decided not to show us some photos, which you are entitled to do, but it also lessens the impact of your side of the debate we are having here on mirrorless cameras. Some of us, me included, are looking at purchasing a mirrorless camera in the future, and discussions like this one, help us choose which camera system to consider and certainly image quality is part of that final choice. After all the images we can produce are the only reason we buy a camera.

If you were a budding watercolour Artist and were discussing with two others the benefits of various papers and brushes. Would you go with the sales rep who has never painted a watercolour in their life but has all the technical knowledge of the brushes and papers from some training courses, or would you go with the long time Artist who's paintings adorn the walls around you and could tell you the nuances of the papers, and which brushes they love to use and why? If it was me, I would listen to the one who has proven they can produce great results with the tools being discussed.

My request that you show us some photos was me hoping that you would wow me (and others) with the quality of images from your mirrorless camera, and by doing so you would gain more respect for your statements on the topic in this current debate.

[ameerat42]

Arg, introspection can be undermining to one's confidence. We have all lost posts here. They have been though glitches
where whole periods of time have been lost. Such incidents are well explained afterwards, and they are thankfully rare.

Questioning of trends is not targeting. Think of it as some helpful suggestion, or a challenge to do more, or something
else you can get some positive result from. It is not a secret that here the motivation is "participate"/"join in", etc.

Am.

[MissionMan]

I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum. If Arg doesn't want to post, so be it. The only person who loses out is Arg. The reason I say this is I have not had a single photo posted on here that hasn't had a good outcome from a learning perspective for me. No matter how good I think a photo is, there is always something another pair of eyes can tell me about it that I didn't think of, another perspective, another angle. There are also people from varying degrees of specialisations that produce some amazing photos so the fact that you may be working in a genre that is not natural means that you can benefit from the advice of another person. I've normally been open about it when I say "hi guys, I don't normally do this sort of photography so I accept that it may/may not be crap. Feel free to pull it to pieces"

People sometimes take criticism personally, but the reality is we are not perfect and we have different opinions so you don't have to agree with criticism. No matter how good we think an image is, there is always room for improvement (despite my delusions of grandeur), or simply a different perspective on something that you may not agree with because we don't have to agree with everyone's advice. I reckon at least 50% of the comp outcomes I disagree with because I voted for a different entry. That tells you how diverse opinions are and looking at the finals of each comp, there is generally a fair good spread of entries so it's not that one person has been a clean winner in most cases. I've even had a photo I thought was crap almost win a comp and I have no idea why. Thats photography.

The only thing I will add is the longer you wait before posting, the more pressure you will put on yourself and the less likely you will be to put something up because you will be overly critical. 99% of the people don't care whether your photos are good or crap from an individual perspective. I've never looked at a photo and said "wow, this person is crap". When you look at a photo, 99% of the time, you look at the photo and evaluate what you can do to help the person, not how this photo changes your opinion of them.

[Nick Cliff]

Hi swifty,
Your experiences if you do opt for a Speedbooster adapter would be very interesting.My feeling is that for macro photography the depth of focus would suffer however for landscape photography this remarkable device may come in handy, regards Nick.

[MattNQ]

Hey Arg,
MM is right. You are missing out on one of the benefits for the forum by not posting pics for cc. It is a fantastic learning experience to get CC that improves your photography.
For me in my 5th yr of seriously learning this black art of image taking, it is great getting feedback from those who have done it for many, many years.

I have refrained from joining the fray thus far given this thread’s descent into technicalities & the minutia of AF capabilities.
It is like Monty Python’s ‘argument’ sketch only in reverse...”I haven’t posted this to start an argument”...”yes you have ”...”no I haven’t”......

Mirrorless. It does polarise people's opinions - more so those who have not shot with both I am finding!
I found it amusing that when the new Oly 40-150/2.8 was announced on Photo Rumours, a few keyboard warriors were ridiculing m4/3 gear as overpriced and underperforming. One does suspect they spend more time behind a keyboard than behind their viewfinder.
At the same time, Michael Reichman from Luminous Landscapes , who has reviewed & shot with the best of the best MF gear available for many years was happy to shoot with the EM1 on his various trips.
Thom Hogan also admits he is a fan of mirrorless. His mirrorless gear has replaced his Nikon DX gear on some of his trips. But he does clarify his experience with ...
“Overall, the m4/3 gear performed pretty much as I expected it to. Thus, I’m happy. But this notion that mirrorless cameras do everything is not correct. You give up something for the smaller size and weight. In this instance, I gave up fast moving subjects in low light. Make sure you know what you’re giving up and what you’re getting in return”

It’s kind of like 4wd’s. I couldn’t go smaller than my Patrol at present with 3 kids . A Suzuki Jimney just wouldn’t suit us for off-road touring. But the Suzuki will kill my Nissan on the beach. And is a lot more fun to drive!
Is one better than the other?...Nope. Each is perfectly capable within the limits of its design.

I use both systems. 95% of my landscapes have been taken on mirrorless – Either EPL1 or my IR modified EPM1 .
Why? Because the EPL1 better suited my shooting style at the time than my D3000 for landscapes. IQ was probably similar, but I did prefer the Oly RAW files.
I also had a better wide lens on the mirrorless (9-18 m.zuiko) than I had on the Nikon (18-55 kit)
I have shot 95% of my sport (and birds/animals) on my D3000 (& more recently my D700 )
Why? Well I had the venerable 80-200/2.8 which was great on both bodies but much easier to use with the optical viewfinder of the Nikon.

Yes, I do have birds in flight and action shots on my mirrorless, but it is much harder work getting keepers. But admittedly I do have cheap mirrorless bodies. I imagine the EM1 would be much better than my bargain basement Epl1.

Now I have the D700, I will probably use it more for landscapes simply for the better dynamic range. It is amazing the highlights you can recover that you can't on the Oly....But first I need to get myself interested in colour landscapes again :D

I have posted shots on the Olympus forum here with various lenses. The super sweet RokkorX 50/1 on my EPL1 can take magic shots. Shots I can't get on my Nikon gear.


Anyway, to cut short my ramblings...

I want to capture art of sorts and also capture action. I have a small selection of tools in the form of cameras and lenses.
I select the tool I think will work best for me in that situation and use it within the limits of strengths & weaknesses to attempt to create something I like.

In the end I don't care if I grab a mirrorless or DSLR as longs as it delivers what I want.

[Arg]

Nice post Matt, thanks. Pretty close to my experiences.

Like you say, there's a right camera for every job :tog::


click this LINK (https://adrienchan.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/20101026201.jpg)

[ameerat42]

Hmm! So the Mars Rover camera was mirrorless!:D

[bcys1961]

Hmm! So the Mars Rover camera was mirrorless!:D

Apparently the current cost to launch something in orbit around our planet , ( i.e escape earths gravitational pull) is between $US23 to 27,000 per kg so given mirrorless are generally smaller and lighter the cost saving could be quite attractive. If the pictures will be as good depends on if you land on the dark side of the moon or not ?

Just a thought - will a DLSR mirror camera work in zero gravity ? Mirror might not drop back down?

[davsv1]

Just a thought - will a DLSR mirror camera work in zero gravity ? Mirror might not drop back down?

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_PressDetails.asp?pressNo=665

[bcys1961]

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_PressDetails.asp?pressNo=665

Well that answers that question. Good to see it is an Oly as well!

[MissionMan]

The optical viewfinder would be useless without a person to look through it so it would be a waste of added weight.

[bcys1961]

The optical viewfinder would be useless without a person to look through it so it would be a waste of added weight.:lol:

[ameerat42]

The optical viewfinder would be useless without a person to look through it so it would be a waste of added weight.

I'm sure a 6-eyed Martian or a bug-eyed alien would find it useful. Send 'em up, I say.:cool:

[jev]

Okay, sorry, this is hugely off-topic, but:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neoUi4poCXI

[ApolloLXII]

I've been using a Sony A57 mirrorless for quite some time and find it a great camera. I'm still using a Sony A500 DSLR and am happy with that model also. Is mirrorless the way of the future? So it seems as more and more camera manufacturers are adopting the new technology however, the pros and cons of mirrorless vs mirror are the subject of subjective debate. It's like asking which brand of camera is better and the end result is a lot of argument with not much in the way of constructive opinion. Whenever subjects of this nature arise, I find that the best solution is to try it out for yourself because nothing is better than personal experience. While a persons opinion may be valid, practical experience will always be far more beneficial at arriving at an informed opinion.

Personally, I can see the benefits of mirrorless technology and enjoy using my A57 but my A500 still has relevance in its application to photography and I'm not going to stop using it simply because it has technology that some might view as outdated.

[MissionMan]

I've been using a Sony A57 mirrorless for quite some time and find it a great camera. I'm still using a Sony A500 DSLR and am happy with that model also. Is mirrorless the way of the future? So it seems as more and more camera manufacturers are adopting the new technology however, the pros and cons of mirrorless vs mirror are the subject of subjective debate. It's like asking which brand of camera is better and the end result is a lot of argument with not much in the way of constructive opinion. Whenever subjects of this nature arise, I find that the best solution is to try it out for yourself because nothing is better than personal experience. While a persons opinion may be valid, practical experience will always be far more beneficial at arriving at an informed opinion.

Personally, I can see the benefits of mirrorless technology and enjoy using my A57 but my A500 still has relevance in its application to photography and I'm not going to stop using it simply because it has technology that some might view as outdated.


Technology is moving so quickly these days that it's hard to predict 5 years, let alone 10.

As an example, if someone told you 7 years ago that Samsung and Apple would be the largest phone manufacturers, you probably would have laughed because Blackberry and Nokia owned the market.

5-10 years from now, DSLR could be dead, mirrorless could be dead or there maybe even be a new method that we haven't seen yet that has some advantage we have thought of. I find it fascinating because it's impossible to predict, you just have to buy for now and hope you're right.

[ApolloLXII]

This is a self portrait that I took recently with the A57 mirror less. As you can see, the technology used to create the image may be a little different but the end result is the same as a camera with a mirror.


114587

[Arg]

If your camera has a mirror, you would think every photo would be a self-portrait..... :o

[Arg]

Here are some thoughts expressed (http://ilovehatephoto.com/2015/01/12/10-reasons-to-switch-from-a-dslr-to-a-mirrorless-system-with-examples-nikon-to-sony/) on why numerous professionals are changing from DSLR to mirrorless.

Kind of obvious, yes, but interesting to see the reasons listed together. Just as obviously, many pros are not changing and they have good reasons too. Especially if they need state-of-the-art telephoto motion tracking, or have a large investment in lenses that would need to be changed over. But an awful lot of serious photographers are not in that position.

[ricktas]

http://youtu.be/irLG7W20yUM

An interesting discussion video ^. In the end, as I said earlier in this thread. People do not have to choose one over the other. It is not a decision to be either DSLR or mirrorless. There are no laws saying we have to pick one, and then not use the other. We can have both a DSLR and mirrorless, and use either, depending on circumstances and needs at the time.

[mikew09]

Stay aware form the light, stay away from the light shinning in that mirror-less camera. I am old school, always will be DSLR until Canon don't sell them anymore :-) LOL

[Arg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l-QoM5PoB8

[mikew09]

I love his reviews form DigiRev - he does a cracka of a review.

[mpb]

This is a self portrait that I took recently with the A57 mirror less. As you can see, the technology used to create the image may be a little different but the end result is the same as a camera with a mirror.




Your A57 actually does have a mirror. It has a Pellicle (or semi-transparent) mirror. The difference from from a DSLR is that your mirror does not flip out of the way when you take your shot. However your point is still correct. It doesnt matter how you capture the image, it the enjoyment and results that count.

Use what ever you are happy with, it really dosent make much difference in the end.

[Kym]

An interesting discussion video ^. In the end, as I said earlier in this thread. People do not have to choose one over the other. It is not a decision to be either DSLR or mirrorless. There are no laws saying we have to pick one, and then not use the other. We can have both a DSLR and mirrorless, and use either, depending on circumstances and needs at the time.

Your wrong! If you use what I'm not using then you are just a big fanboi and gear-head!! :lol2:

[Kym]

Your A57 actually does have a mirror. It has a Pellicle (or semi-transparent) mirror.

And the SLT Pellicle mirror system has one big issue, the loss of 1/3 to 1/2 stop of light.
While in many applications it's not a big deal, I figure any loss of light is ultimately not a good thing.
The less stuff between the subject and the sensor/film is generally better.

[ricktas]

Your wrong! If you use what I'm not using then you are just a big fanboi and gear-head!! :lol2:

You say that like is a bad thing Kym; GAS is only an issue if you let it be, otherwise it is fun.

[Arg]

...As DSLR's get better autofocus systems at the top end, the bottom end gets better and the lower level full frame cameras that go for $2000 have autofocus systems that are very bit as good as the top of the range cameras from a couple of years ago....
The marketing claims talk about "fastest autofocus" have a minor little disclaimer you may want to read. I.e. They exclude DSLR's from their claim.
It excludes all the full frame ones which are the ones that have the best autofocus systems and exactly the ones we are talking about (including the D750).

The Digitalversus web reviews of cameras include AF speed measurements. According to them,

Nikon D750
Wide angle AF: 0.31 secs
Low light AF: 0.67 secs

Panasonic GH4
Wide angle AF: 0.07 secs
Low light AF: 0.34 secs

I'm absolutely certain that's not a definitive comparison -- results would be lens-dependent for a start -- but to me it at least suggests there is no need to worry about CDAF being slow in single shot shooting, including burst mode.

[mpb]

..... I am old school, always will be DSLR until Canon don't sell them anymore :-) LOL

Old school now only extends back 15 years max.:D
I bet many said the same thing about film vs digital.

[ameerat42]

Old school now only extends back 15 years max.:D
I bet many said the same thing about film vs digital.

Are you forgetting the cave paintings?:D

[MissionMan]

The Digitalversus web reviews of cameras include AF speed measurements. According to them,

Nikon D750
Wide angle AF: 0.31 secs
Low light AF: 0.67 secs

Panasonic GH4
Wide angle AF: 0.07 secs
Low light AF: 0.34 secs

I'm absolutely certain that's not a definitive comparison -- results would be lens-dependent for a start -- but to me it at least suggests there is no need to worry about CDAF being slow in single shot shooting, including burst mode.

Are we really going to open up this can of worms again after you specifically asked to keep the subject to Mirrorless and avoid comparing them to DSLR's?

Need I remind you of Dpreview (which is considered to be one of the best and most detailed review sites currently) who also stated the following which highlights the issue of mirrorless AF systems and autofocus on objects moving towards or away from the camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4/12

"The camera does a pretty good job of re-focusing on a moving subject. Sadly we couldn't get the camera to lock onto the rider as a subject, which meant we weren't able to properly test the camera's focus tracking. As you can see, the DFD focus does a good job of correctly following the subject distance."

"When we tested the focus tracking in the video section of this review we found that it could be difficult to get the camera to consistently recognise a subject, meaning that it couldn't then track that subject. The same proved to be true of our (admittedly single-scenario) cycling-towards-the-camera examples.After repeated attempts (including setting the subject with the rider close to the camera, then backing up, to retain the subject-lock), we couldn't get the camera to reliably lock or stay locked onto the subject. However, specifying a series of focus points and letting the camera prioritize the subject of its choice (probably the closest object), resulted in a pretty successful sequence of in-focus or acceptably sharp images."

In conjunction to this, their conclusion had the following cons for the camera:




DFD system limited to Panasonic lenses
Focus tracking poor at subject identification
Focus peaking often too subtle to assess focus point

[ameerat42]

...Need I remind you of Dpreview (which is considered to be one of the best and most detailed review sites currently) who also stated the following which highlights the issue of mirrorless AF systems and autofocus on objects moving towards or away from the camera:

"The camera does a pretty good job of re-focusing on a moving subject. Sadly we couldn't get the camera to lock onto the rider as a subject, which meant we weren't able to properly test the camera's focus tracking. As you can see, the DFD focus does a good job of correctly following the subject distance."...

"...When we tested the focus tracking in the...
In conjunction to this, their conclusion had the following cons for the camera:
...


MM. I'd add a link to the webpage in Q.

(Glad I opted for cave paintings:cool:)

[MissionMan]

Done :)

[ameerat42]

Done :)

MM. Ou est the link?

[MissionMan]

MM. Ou est the link?

It's in my post. I edited it the original post :p

[ameerat42]

Sorry. Didn't see:o

[ApolloLXII]

And the SLT Pellicle mirror system has one big issue, the loss of 1/3 to 1/2 stop of light.
While in many applications it's not a big deal, I figure any loss of light is ultimately not a good thing.
The less stuff between the subject and the sensor/film is generally better.

It works for me [emoji4].

[MissionMan]

Sorry. Didn't see:o

You have focus issues. You must be using a mirrorless. :p

[ameerat42]

Yep. No reflection on me!!

Actually I have 2 mirrorless, fixed lens cameras, and a DSLR. But that's beside the point(-and-shoots I also dabbled in along the way).
The two ML cams are compacts, not P&Ss. I make that distinction based on sensor size (APSC, not microscopic) and resultant IQ.


Am(generally :D)

[Arg]

Are we really going to open up this can of worms again after you specifically asked to keep the subject to Mirrorless and avoid comparing them to DSLR's?

Need I remind you of Dpreview (which is considered to be one of the best and most detailed review sites currently) who also stated the following which highlights the issue of mirrorless AF systems and autofocus on objects moving towards or away from the camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4/12

"The camera does a pretty good job of re-focusing on a moving subject. Sadly we couldn't get the camera to lock onto the rider as a subject, which meant we weren't able to properly test the camera's focus tracking. As you can see, the DFD focus does a good job of correctly following the subject distance."

"When we tested the focus tracking in the video section of this review we found that it could be difficult to get the camera to consistently recognise a subject, meaning that it couldn't then track that subject. The same proved to be true of our (admittedly single-scenario) cycling-towards-the-camera examples.After repeated attempts (including setting the subject with the rider close to the camera, then backing up, to retain the subject-lock), we couldn't get the camera to reliably lock or stay locked onto the subject. However, specifying a series of focus points and letting the camera prioritize the subject of its choice (probably the closest object), resulted in a pretty successful sequence of in-focus or acceptably sharp images."

In conjunction to this, their conclusion had the following cons for the camera:




DFD system limited to Panasonic lenses
Focus tracking poor at subject identification
Focus peaking often too subtle to assess focus point


How's the focus peaking going in your D750? :lol:

Clearly you have an anti-mirrorless agenda that you want to pursue via this mirrorless-owners-meet-and-greet thread. Compare any 2 camera models and you will find they are each better or worse than the other in different areas. Dpreview found the GH4 focus tracking is the next area for further improvement, although the CAF is great, and Digitalversus found the GH4 is already way ahead of the D750 for AF acquisition speed. Accept that even in the area of AF, there are pros and cons between the two systems. Give an inch.

BTW dpreview mostly assessed the GH4 as a video camera: they made the beginner's mistake of thinking you wouldn't buy a GH4 if you are primarily into still images.

[ricktas]

How's the focus peaking going in your D750? :lol:

Clearly you have an anti-mirrorless agenda that you want to pursue via this mirrorless-owners-meet-and-greet thread. Compare any 2 camera models and you will find they are each better or worse than the other in different areas. Dpreview found the GH4 focus tracking is the next area for further improvement, although the CAF is great, and Digitalversus found the GH4 is already way ahead of the D750 for AF acquisition speed. Accept that even in the area of AF, there are pros and cons between the two systems. Give an inch.

BTW dpreview mostly assessed the GH4 as a video camera: they made the beginner's mistake of thinking you wouldn't buy a GH4 if you are primarily into still images.

Something to remember too, is that DPReview is owned by Amazon. How do Amazon make money? they use advertising and selling as the main basis for all their income. Whilst the reviews on DPReview once were very accurate, since Amazon acquired it, those that have been into photography long enough to recall, have seen a shift in reviews on the site to be more positive and promotional. Simply Amazon makes more money out of being positive about a product than it does about being negative about one.

And once again you seem to be trying to create a mirrorless is better than DSLR debate with your comment at Missionman about focus peaking. How's your mirrorless high ISO performance compared to a Nikon D4? All camera equipment has pro's and con's. I see this time you also make comment about dpreview making a 'beginners mistake'. Which is similar to your 'thoughtless upgrade to full frame' comment in another thread you started that got the ire of many.

Why do you repeatedly feel the need to denigrate those who choose a different equipment path to what you have chosen?

[arthurking83]

FWIW: focus peaking is actually available on the D750 .... so the humour is a little ill
concieved.

focus peaking isn't some magic cure for achieving critical focus.
It can help to focus on a subject, but at it's best it's still a guesstimate that is critically dependent on the ability of the focus system!
If you are confused as to how or why a D750 can have focus peaking, then I don't think you fully understand that it's not some magic pill limited to EVF only cameras.
I used to use it regularly on my D300 with the Nikon 50/1.2 attached.
But it was still only a guesstimate.
I noted, and it has been commented on in some reviews of the Sony A7 with a very fast lens attached .... the focus peaking feature is not dead accurate 100% of the time.

I still find that a properly designed OVF with appropriate focus aides is both more accurate more consistent and overall nicer to use.

I replaced the focus screen on both the D800E and D300 to what I want.
If a more perfect focus screen comes to market in the future then I maintain that advantage in viewfinder ability.
What option do you get for bettering an EVF?
(that I can find ... none!)

If you haven't experienced a Katzeye screen you've missed out massively!
They are a couple of orders of magnitude better than any standard manufacturer screen.

Just because manufacturers OVF render a scene the way they do, doesn't strictly imply that they can't be bettered. This is just what the manufacturers deem to be both financially and technically appropriate.
Once you try a properly designed accessory of this quality level, it's hard to stick with the manufacturer's spec type.

Think of it in terms of vehicle suspension.
You can stick with the price/performance compromise that the manufacturer deems to be sufficient, or you could change to a higher quality aftermarket type, which improves comfort/ride, handling and probably tyre wear.

Given the choice between an A7's EVF and a D300 with the katzeye screen I'm 99.9% sure that most would prefer the D300+Katzeye screen.
And yes I have tried the Sony A7 + Sony 55mm f/1.8 combo.
Tried manually focusing with peaking and it was hit and miss o too many instances to be deemed 100% perfect.

Of course the problem with aftermarket focus screens is that you are subject to the vagaries of these companies supplying the products.
If they don't supply those products, the advantage of what is possible becomes moot.

eg. Katzeye don't make screens for the D800 series cameras, so while I know what is possible, it's useless as knowledge only. I still pray that one day they will come to their senses and create one.
At the moment I'm currently using a screen from focusing screen dot com ... which is OK... but only ok. Nowhere near the ability of the katzeye screen.


As for the quoted AF speed numbers!
You don't want to get me started on how they can be manipulated to suit any flavour of bias on an as needed basis.

[Arg]

@ricktas, my apologies. I will amend the post in question if I can figure out how. The 'LOL' smiley clearly looks worse than if I typed LOL, even though it is the same meaning. A meaning that is a million miles from ridicule in the modern world of online communication. I think someone thought I was unconscionably rude when I used it in post #6, based on what happened since then. I never meant that -- please treat me as someone with a cheeky sense of humour.

Regarding 'my' mirrorless is better than reflex debate, it is a misread to think I am pursuing it. All did earlier in this thread I started, was mention that mirrorless is the only growing segment in camera sales, and from that moment on it has been assumed I think they are the best cameras in the world. Post #3 I was told I by Andrew that I am gear obsessed and need to change my hobby. That's a pretty aggressive attack and built on zero information (have a look a that quoted part of my post that leads Andrew to make that statement about me and where I should go). Yet if I show the slightest frustration or post in a similar vein, I am in big trouble.

I have been on the defensive the whole time, and based on an assumption about my opinions on cameras that is utterly wrong and made up. FWIW I think mirrorless cameras, combined with current lens kits, offer a few operational advantages and a few disadvantages against current reflex systems, plus a size and weight advantage. I have no problem with anyone's choice when they choose either type of system. But clearly some people don't want to accede that amount of credibility to mirrorless systems, arguing that the only reason to own one is size and weight. IIRC that exact statement has been posted in this thread.

I'll say it again: this thread was meant to be for mirrorless users to chat about their experiences, to help each other to transition from other systems, to be convivial. In that context I see and intend no harm or insult if it is mentioned that mirrorless cameras now acquire AF as quickly as reflex cameras -- it helps the actual mirrorless users to understand their growing performance and capability. And to feel more comfortable with staying with the system, and use the equipment more confidently. The 'debating' is all coming from the reflex owners' side. Instead of being asked questions about my experience (as a user and as one who has made the move from DSLR) by people who have or are interested in moving into mirrorless in a major way, I am personally put on the defensive by people who are not interested in mirrorless, or at most as a 'handy second kit' for when they don't need the best results. I understand it is pretty humourless here, in the sense of Australian humour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_comedy#Australian_sense_of_humour), so I am trying to adjust so I fit in better.

[MissionMan]

How's the focus peaking going in your D750? :lol:

Clearly you have an anti-mirrorless agenda that you want to pursue via this mirrorless-owners-meet-and-greet thread. Compare any 2 camera models and you will find they are each better or worse than the other in different areas. Dpreview found the GH4 focus tracking is the next area for further improvement, although the CAF is great, and Digitalversus found the GH4 is already way ahead of the D750 for AF acquisition speed. Accept that even in the area of AF, there are pros and cons between the two systems. Give an inch.

BTW dpreview mostly assessed the GH4 as a video camera: they made the beginner's mistake of thinking you wouldn't buy a GH4 if you are primarily into still images.

I have a mirrorless agenda? Are you forgetting you started this up again by quoting my post and trying to one up?

It seems you are the one who seems intent on moving this post back to DSLR comparisons, so if you want people to stop comparing DSLRs to mirrorless, stop comparing mirrorless to DSLR. It's very simple.

[Arg]

FWIW: focus peaking is actually available on the D750 .... so the humour is a little ill
concieved.

Like MM for his knowledge of the GH4, I rely on the internet for my knowledge of the D750 and whether it has focus peaking (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D750/). Or here (http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_d750_review/). Perhaps MM can confirm, from personal experience. Looks like my lighthearted question to him a few posts back was actually in need of an answer! :o

==

Okay, I just saw MM's post on matters other than focus peaking. [1] I tried to have DSLR discussion removed from the thread, but was refused on the basis that it is relevant. On that basis, I have to address misconceptions posted by non-mirrorless users, who may have good intentions but lack experience. [2] Given [1] above, I think it's okay for an existing mirrorless user to discuss with others how they compare to the current benchmark and market leader (reflex cameras) (where they are catching up, where they are actually better, where they need to improve if they want to win over ever more reflex camera users) purely on the basis of understanding the mirrorless cameras we already own, or encouraging or educating photographers with a genuine interest in acquiring mirrorless cameras as a major part of their gear. I can't see very much constructive in bringing in a lot of negativity with no intention of learning or asking or moving significantly into mirrorless systems. In resisting that trend in this thread, and trying to manage it, I end up looking like the negative guy, ironically.

[ricktas]

. Instead of being asked questions about my experience (as a user and as one who has made the move from DSLR) by people who have or are interested in moving into mirrorless in a major way, I am personally put on the defensive by people who are not interested in mirrorless, or at most as a 'handy second kit' for when they don't need the best results. I understand it is pretty humourless here, in the sense of Australian humour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_comedy#Australian_sense_of_humour), so I am trying to adjust so I fit in better.

See, that is where you and I disagree. You are again assuming that those of us with a DSLR who might be considering a mirrorless addition to our kit as wanting to use the mirrorless when we do not want the best results. I want a mirrorless for street photography. It is not cause I do not want the best results, but rather that I perceived I will get better results with mirrorless. Mainly because as I have said previously, holding a D800 and 70-200 attracts attention. A smaller kit is a boon for street photography where being inconspicuous can be a real advantage. Though as I have already stated I am awaiting the rumoured Nikon full frame mirrorless. Why? Because the benefits of a larger sensor are numerous, and have already been discussed.

Many posters in this thread have discussed the benefits and disadvantages of a range of camera parts, mechanics, physics, and electronics. Surely any discussion about both the benefits and restrictions of any camera gear is worthwhile? After all, someone might read this thread and learn something about camera equipment that they did not know and it may very well help them decide what camera (system) to buy into. An informed buyer has an advantage over an uninformed one.

Perhaps stop being on the defensive and read what has been written. There is some great information in this thread, that if you are defensive, you may overlook. If you are defensive when you start reading a longer post, you are starting at a disadvantage. Also by being on the defensive you then look to go on the offensive to 'regain ground', when you don't need to.

Have a read of your thread with a fresh approach and you might find there is some damn good information in it.

[Arg]

See, that is where you and I disagree. You are again assuming that those of us with a DSLR who might be considering a mirrorless addition to our kit as wanting to use the mirrorless when we do not want the best results. I want a mirrorless for street photography. It is not cause I do not want the best results, but rather that I perceived I will get better results with mirrorless. Mainly because as I have said previously, holding a D800 and 70-200 attracts attention. A smaller kit is a boon for street photography where being inconspicuous can be a real advantage. Though as I have already stated I am awaiting the rumoured Nikon full frame mirrorless. Why? Because the benefits of a larger sensor are numerous, and have already been discussed.

Many posters in this thread have discussed the benefits and disadvantages of a range of camera parts, mechanics, physics, and electronics. Surely any discussion about both the benefits and restrictions of any camera gear is worthwhile?
Perhaps direct that question to the writer of post #3, who said I am gear-obsessed and should change hobbies.


After all, someone might read this thread and learn something about camera equipment that they did not know and it may very well help them decide what camera (system) to buy into. An informed buyer has an advantage over an uninformed one.

Perhaps stop being on the defensive and read what has been written. There is some great information in this thread, that if you are defensive, you may overlook. If you are defensive when you start reading a longer post, you are starting at a disadvantage. Also by being on the defensive you then look to go on the offensive to 'regain ground', when you don't need to.

Have a read of your thread with a fresh approach and you might find there is some damn good information in it.

Yep -- some of it I even wrote myself. See if you can find anything I wrote that hasn't been argued to the n'th degree by others who, like you suggest for me, could do well to read without bias. Unfortunately, you directed the above to me alone, and not other posters in this thread.

I am not the raving ignorant loony you seem to imply. To quote myself from 3 or 4 posts up: "I think mirrorless cameras, combined with current lens kits, offer a few operational advantages and a few disadvantages against current reflex systems, plus a size and weight advantage. I have no problem with anyone's choice when they choose either type of system." Biased?

[ricktas]

I am not the raving ignorant loony you seem to imply.

Again, where did I imply that? You seem to think the rest of us have an issue with you. We don't.

[MissionMan]

Like MM for his knowledge of the GH4, I rely on the internet for my knowledge of the D750 and whether it has focus peaking (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D750/). Or here (http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_d750_review/). Perhaps MM can confirm, from personal experience. Looks like my lighthearted question to him a few posts back was actually in need of an answer! :o

==

Okay, I just saw MM's post on matters other than focus peaking. [1] I tried to have DSLR discussion removed from the thread, but was refused on the basis that it is relevant. On that basis, I have to address misconceptions posted by non-mirrorless users, who may have good intentions but lack experience. [2] Given [1] above, I think it's okay for an existing mirrorless user to discuss with others how they compare to the current benchmark and market leader (reflex cameras) (where they are catching up, where they are actually better, where they need to improve if they want to win over ever more reflex camera users) purely on the basis of understanding the mirrorless cameras we already own, or encouraging or educating photographers with a genuine interest in acquiring mirrorless cameras as a major part of their gear. I can't see very much constructive in bringing in a lot of negativity with no intention of learning or asking or moving significantly into mirrorless systems. In resisting that trend in this thread, and trying to manage it, I end up looking like the negative guy, ironically.

This is where I strongly disagree with your statements. You state you are trying to clear up misconceptions when you are actually perpetuating misconceptions, like your statement from a manufacturer that mirrorless have the fastest AF in the world when it excludes full frame DSLR's. You can't post something which is simply not true and expect people to shut up because it's directed in a mirrorless forum or for the mods to delete statements which contradict your own personal views. I would hope that people continue to clear up misconceptions, yours, mine or otherwise because we actually have a chance to learn.

And just to clear something up...no one ever said mirrorless AF was crap, they simply said it wasn't as good as pro DSLR's. Now I'm not 100% sure how this offends you in any form, given the cameras are twice the price or more in some cases? Welcome to the real world where a $600K car is better than a $100K one. Pro DSLR's are the benchmark. They are good and expensive because they have to be designed for pros who can't afford to miss a shot. They are the best in the world for action photography. If your camera that costs less than a third of the price doesn't match the grade of pro gear and you're offended, you need a reality check. I don't get offended if someone says a D4s has a better AF system, it simply does, and if I was prepared to pay twice the price, I could have had it as well.

Now on to whether I simply read, I have used mirrorless, I tested them for extended period and I like them. If a full frame mirrorless arrives that uses the DSLR mount arrives for Nikon, I will get one as a second body (I currently have a D700) because there are occasions I want something smaller. I won't get one now because I don't want to buy two sets of lenses and I don't believe a total move to mirrorless would be effective. I like being able to carry something compact with a 50mm f/1.4, 20mm f/1.8 or 85 /1.8 attached and a second body for me doesn't have to be a pro DSLR. When it comes to you, unfortunately, I have no idea what gear you use or have used. You haven't posted pictures which makes it difficult to ascertain what DSLR you came from, what lenses you were using and what mirrorless you are currently using.

[arthurking83]

Like MM for his knowledge of the GH4, I rely on the internet for my knowledge of the D750 and whether it has focus peaking (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D750/). Or here (http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_d750_review/). Perhaps MM can confirm, from personal experience. .....

You don't need confirmation from MM about focus peaking.

IIRC, you went from a Canon DSLR to mirrorless now.
If you had a Canon DSLR, you also had a focus peaking feature, although you may not have used it .. as most also don't.

All Nikon DSLRs have a focus peaking feature(that I know of).

This feature may not operate as you see it in your mirrorless(or any mirrorless cameras that do have it) , but it works in a similar or same manner.

The electronic rangefinder in a DSLR camera is for all intents and purposes a focus peaking feature.
It estimates when two contrasting elements achieve peak contrast situation.
It works via the focus module in a DSLR, and as I understand it in mirrorless, it works via the CDAF pixels on the sensor that estimate CDAF requirements.

The major difference between focus peaking on a DSLR compared with that of most mirrorless cameras(as I've experienced and understand them).

1. on a DSLR the focus peaking feature via the use of the rangefinder feature only operates on the selected focus point.
That is, it won't give you accurate focus estimation on the far RHS corner, if the focus point is set to the far LHS corner.
The confirmation indication in the viewfinder is the same as the focus peaking feature as used in the Sony A7(which I have tried) and not been overly impressed with when the DOF was narrow.

2. on (at least the Sony A7 I played with) a mirrorless camera, the focus peaking indicates a coloured area of where the camera thinks focus is(or more accurately sees greatest contrast).
The major difference is that on the A7, as the sensor is basically covered with AF points the focus points are almost omnipresent anyhow, so allows the feature you may be refering too as focus peaking.

On a smaller format camera system, focus peaking should be 'more accurate' as the DOF for a given field of view tends to be narrower. Narrower DOF masks the inaccuracy of an estimated focus point.
it would be a trivial matter for Nikon to have included focus peaking as you see it in a mirrorless camera on their D750, but they obviously deemed that it wasn't important or robust enough or whatever reason.
To add focus peaking as implemented in a mirrorless camera should be easy in the liveview feature already present in all DSLRs now.
My experience is that DSLR makers haven't added focus peaking in liveview mode as it's not as accurate as a proper visual focus aid can be.
I'm fairly confident that if such a feature were implemented in a DSLR(via liveview), I'd be less likely to use it to judge focus.
I prefer either a visual aide such as a microprism or split screen .. or simple visual confirmation via a magnified liveview image.

You need to remember!
Now as all DSLR cameras have a liveview function, we 'dinosaurs' do have access to a mirrorless camera at will. But at the same time we can use our cameras as per the regular non mirrorless or OVF modes as we deem to be appropriate.
I can tell you straight up, when Liveview was first brought to DSLR cameras, I was a major proponent of the system .. where others seemed to have baulked at the notion!
Same with video.. major breakthrough for DSLR digital cameras.
I have and will probably always be a heavy user of liveview on my cameras, and cant' imagine going back to non liveview cameras any time.
So much so in fact, I find myself in a slight predicament.
I want a broadband/full spectrum camera, and have one of two cameras to choose from to convert.
D70s or D300.
My head says convert the little used D70s, even tho it's old and diminutive and not worth selling as it's worth nothing . it makes the most sense.
This way it still leaves the D300 as a second stringer if and when I need it.
By my other head says that when I go to the trouble to convert the camera to non standard, I'm better off doing the D300 simply because the liveview feature will be required at times.
So I'm better off converting the D300. I know that if I convert the D70s, I'll be kicking myself when I either cant' see or have trouble with lenses that focus shift heavily in a non visible wavelength.
Liveview is therefore an almost an imperative.

But, there are times when liveview(and therefore by default) a mirrorless camera simply can't hold a candle to an OVF. I use the OVF at least 3x as much as I do the liveview feature.

So what's wrong with mirrorless? .. the actual feature that is commonly being espoused as it's greatest virtue .. the EVF.

It's still too low in both resolution and dynamic range, when compared to an OVF.

When both of these fundamental aspects have been addressed, where there is no shadow of doubt that EVFs are as good or better than an OVF .. there will be no reason to maintain a costly and inherently difficult to manufacturer DSLR camera any longer.
It will become the next film vs digital debate.

At the moment tho, there are too few pixels displaying too little detail in an EVF. Maybe at about the 5 to 8Mp EVF era (I don't know, just a guess) we may see no question about it .. there is no reason to stick with an OVF.
Just as we did with film vs digital. At the 8Mp era of digital sensors, the detail was there as proof .. no question about it .. digital in most, if not all aspects, was clearly a better medium for capturing photos.
That didn't make film totally useless tho nor did it stop people wanting to use film(as I did sometimes) .. Just as I love old cars and just about anything old really, I still like the idea of film. It's the nostalgic feeling it provides.
I'm personally not immune to new technology. I only succumb to it if it provides an advantage.(not simply because it's the new era, and I should follow the trend)

So when I bite the bullet and decide that a mirrorless camera is now what I need, it will be purely for the advantage it offers in whatever way over what I am or was using before this point.

Again, we have different opinions based around personal requirements.
My requirements don't follow a path that size is important. Lighter would be nice, but a very low priority .. smaller is not really an option for me. I need a specific sized camera to hold onto.
Too small and it doesn't work for me .. in fact smaller is more of a pain.
viewfinder quality is where high priority lies for me.
Also AF speed too. GH4 may be the greatest AF speed freak in the history of camera kind, but I'm not so easily convinced.
Maybe I need to get to a shop to try one out one day.
What doesn't make sense about this implied super capability in the GH4's AF system, is why it doesn't get reported as DSLR beating performance all over the net.
I've gone back to Thom's site to see what he thinks thinking to myself that maybe I've missed some info posted about how much faster the GH4's AF is compared to the D750's
And you wouldn't have guessed it .. but nothing! No mention that the GH4 can focus at light speed, or is in any way up to the task of keeping pace with DSLRs ... when it counts!
The only mention of any mirrorless camera capable of claiming almost parity with DSLRs in terms of AF ability, is referring to the Nikon 1's ability.
But Thom does mention that on static subjects, the mirrorless cameras are anywhere from good to superb.

Again tho .. I can't see the need to differentiate.
Just as with film, or old cars, or anything that is not your cupp'a tea.
Why is it important that other users need to conform to the current trend?
I'd be more inclined to be thankful that there are these varying options.. just as I have the option to use a Samsung Galaxy Camera if I feel the need too.
This is the only real non DSLR type camera in my house(apart from the tablets/smartphones).
I don't use tablet/smartphones as cameras, even tho there really isn't much difference between them and the SGC.

If a photographer has a genuine interest in acquiring a mirrorless camera, this is their own personal choice, just as in my situation I just refuse to use a smartphone as a camera.
It's personal choice(but a deep seated one based on usability and controlability).

[ricktas]

The title of this thread is C'mon let's wake this forum up.

With 195 posts.. I think it is awake.

[mpb]

Definitely awake, and no doubt will gain self awareness at any moment now.
John Conner, where are you?

[Arg]

The First Impressions Review on DPR of the Samsung NX1 mirrorless camera says that its Tracking Autofocus is better than the new Canon 7D II DSLR.

Still not perfect, but :D

[MissionMan]

The First Impressions Review on DPR of the Samsung NX1 mirrorless camera says that its Tracking Autofocus is better than the new Canon 7D II DSLR.

Still not perfect, but :D

Wow, some selective reading happening there. Better when the subject is isolated. Probably worth pasting the entire statement on the autofocus to show what they really said:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsung-nx1/6

Subject tracking was generally reliable as long as a subject was reasonably well isolated. I didn't realistically expect the system to track an individual player running straight through a pack of 10 other people, but frustratingly I ran in to a number of cases where tracking would jump from my primary subject to a secondary subject far in the background even when my subject was well isolated.
I haven't been able to quantify it, but there seemed to be a brightness threshold at which the camera's phase detect AF system became less effective and it relied more on the contrast detect system. I noticed this in shadow areas and areas with dark background. Once I reached this threshold the camera would begin searching back and forth. A lot. In a few cases it just refused to focus on anything and I had to focus manually before the AF system would begin working again.
So how did the NX1 compare to the Canon 7D II at the soccer game? I nailed focus on more shots with the Canon (though not by a huge margin) and it struggled less in low light than the Samsung. The Canon AF system just felt more mature. In fairness, Canon's AF system has been evolving for years while the NX1 is still the new kid on the block. Where that new kid really excelled, however, was subject tracking. The NX1 wasn't perfect, but it was more adept at sticking with a subject than Canon's iTR tracking system.
I was also curious about the NX1's ability to maintain continuous autofocus while shooting at 15 fps, so I decided to photograph my colleague Richard (who happens to be a dedicated cyclist) as he rode on a local bike trail. Shooting opportunity for me, free photos for Richard. Win-win situation.
I was again shooting with the Samsung 50-150mm F2.8 lens, zoomed to the long end, and Richard was coming at me pretty fast, so even at 15 fps his position was shifting between shots. For the most part the NX1 kept pace with Richard, tracking him both toward the camera and across the frame, and I could see the cloud of AF points staying right on top of him. Only when he got very close did it begin to lose him. While not every shot was in focus, the percentage was high.

[MattNQ]

200 posts!

I've nothing to say but wanted to click it over :D

Wish I brought popcorn.....

[Mary Anne]

Bet it did not work Matt though this one will do it :D

[Arg]

The point being, MM, that what was once a thrashing is now a fair fight with a few pros and cons either way, model by model.

And that's a long way from the impression given earlier in this thread (not naming names -- 'cos I was one of them ;)).

- - - Updated - - -


200 posts!

I've nothing to say but wanted to click it over :D

Wish I brought popcorn.....

I'll keep an eye out for you, Matt, in another 97! :tog:

[MissionMan]

The point being, MM, that what was once a thrashing is now a fair fight with a few pros and cons either way, model by model.

And that's a long way from the impression given earlier in this thread (not naming names -- 'cos I was one of them ;)).

- - - Updated - - -



I'll keep an eye out for you, Matt, in another 97! :tog:

Actually you are right in this case. The NX1 mirrorless is the same size and price of a digital SLR so it now has no pros over a DSLR :lol:

Can I kindly request that you mirrorless users stop dragging us DSLR users into a mirrorless discussion and keep it to mirrorless. :D

On the up side, you started a thread which went up to 200 posts. For someone who hasn't posted a picture on Ausphoto yet, that's an impressive feat.

Maybe our next post challenge to match this thread length could be a picture challenge to try show our pictures of animals that we think best portray our perception of what we think Mongo looks like.

[Mary Anne]

Can I kindly request that you mirrorless users stop dragging us DSLR users into a mirrorless discussion and keep it to mirrorless. :D

:lol::lol:




On the up side, you started a thread which went up to 200 posts. For someone who hasn't posted a picture on Ausphoto yet, that's an impressive feat.

I Agree On That One





Maybe our next post challenge to match this thread length could be a picture challenge to try show our pictures of animals that we think best portray our perception of what we think Mongo looks like.

The Mind Boggles though I will look forward to it.. Perhaps Lance could enlighten us.

[Arg]

Actually you are right in this case. The NX1 mirrorless is the same size and price of a digital SLR so it now has no pros over a DSLR :lol:

7D II's cubic volume (WxHxD) is 40% more than the NX1 and its weight 65% more. By your definition of 'same size', an APSC sensor is the same size as a full frame.

If I 'lol' back at your comment the same way, I might get into trouble.... so I won't .


Can I kindly request that you mirrorless users stop dragging us DSLR users into a mirrorless discussion and keep it to mirrorless. :D

At no point have I invited a single DSLR user into this thread, let alone 'dragged'. The OP is clear:



Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. This thread can be a kind of register of DSLM (i.e. mirrorless) camera photographers.
Yet that friendly invitation has been treated more like a declaration of war since post #3. You, not I, started the put-down comparisons with DSLR in post #9, "it's like pretending your Hyundai is a BMW", then #21, "I recommend mirrorless cameras to people who aren't photo enthusiasts" (i.e. who know nothing about cameras), and #30, "a mirrorless won't match a DSLR for focus speed". Dig, dig, dig.

The first time I made comparison with a DSLR was post #32 where I wrote "DSLM cameras are not yet as good as the best DSLRs (at CAF)". Hardly a troublemaker, eh?

Don't paint me as the bringer of DSLR in this thread, nor as the reason it remains here. Anyway, I answered your request in my post #190 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136397-C-mon-let-s-wake-this-forum-up&p=1276802#post1276802), "I think it's okay for an existing mirrorless user to discuss with others how they compare to the current benchmark and market leader (reflex cameras) (where they are catching up, where they are actually better, where they need to improve if they want to win over ever more reflex camera users) purely on the basis of understanding the mirrorless cameras we already own, or encouraging or educating photographers with a genuine interest in acquiring mirrorless cameras as a major part of their gear.".


On the up side, you started a thread which went up to 200 posts. For someone who hasn't posted a picture on Ausphoto yet, that's an impressive feat.

Most of the posts in this thread since the end of page 1 have been by people who apparently don't own a DSLM camera, yet have failed to ask a single genuine question of those who do, but instead, give lectures on their inferiority. I can't honestly say that it has been a pleasure responding to such posts. The equivalent behavior would be me going over to all the DSLR threads and not letting a single point of praise of a camera go uncriticized. Then you'd see some post counts go through the roof -- and I would be promptly banned for being a troublemaker, after being derided for making ignorant comments when not actually owning a DSLR (and resorting to criticizing cameras I don't own by quoting extracts from dpreview reviews). My 35 years of experience with Canon SLR and subsequently DSLR cameras would not save me, I reckon.

- - - Updated - - -

As a matter of interest, and in reply to claims made that I think DSLM cameras are the best, i.e. I am biased, when I am approached by budding photographers who want to 'get into' photography, and asked what can I recommend for them to buy without breaking the bank, I always point them to the Canikon twin lens kits of the 700D/D3300 ilk. Those models are unmatched IMHO in terms of pure image quality per dollar, including lens quality.

This thread is not about 'which is the best'. That answer varies for each person. This thread is about DSLM/mirrorless camera users sharing their appreciation and helping out.

[MissionMan]

7D II's cubic volume (WxHxD) is 40% more than the NX1 and its weight 65% more. By your definition of 'same size', an APSC sensor is the same size as a full frame.

If I 'lol' back at your comment the same way, I might get into trouble.... so I won't .



At no point have I invited a single DSLR user into this thread, let alone 'dragged'. The OP is clear:



Yet that friendly invitation has been treated more like a declaration of war since post #3. You, not I, started the put-down comparisons with DSLR in post #9, "it's like pretending your Hyundai is a BMW", then #21, "I recommend mirrorless cameras to people who aren't photo enthusiasts" (i.e. who know nothing about cameras), and #30, "a mirrorless won't match a DSLR for focus speed". Dig, dig, dig.

The first time I made comparison with a DSLR was post #32 where I wrote "DSLM cameras are not yet as good as the best DSLRs (at CAF)". Hardly a troublemaker, eh?

Don't paint me as the bringer of DSLR in this thread, nor as the reason it remains here. Anyway, I answered your request in my post #190 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136397-C-mon-let-s-wake-this-forum-up&p=1276802#post1276802), "I think it's okay for an existing mirrorless user to discuss with others how they compare to the current benchmark and market leader (reflex cameras) (where they are catching up, where they are actually better, where they need to improve if they want to win over ever more reflex camera users) purely on the basis of understanding the mirrorless cameras we already own, or encouraging or educating photographers with a genuine interest in acquiring mirrorless cameras as a major part of their gear.".



Most of the posts in this thread since the end of page 1 have been by people who apparently don't own a DSLM camera, yet have failed to ask a single genuine question of those who do, but instead, give lectures on their inferiority. I can't honestly say that it has been a pleasure responding to such posts. The equivalent behavior would be me going over to all the DSLR threads and not letting a single point of praise of a camera go uncriticized. Then you'd see some post counts go through the roof -- and I would be promptly banned for being a troublemaker, after being derided for making ignorant comments when not actually owning a DSLR (and resorting to criticizing cameras I don't own by quoting extracts from dpreview reviews). My 35 years of experience with Canon SLR and subsequently DSLR cameras would not save me, I reckon.

- - - Updated - - -

As a matter of interest, and in reply to claims made that I think DSLM cameras are the best, i.e. I am biased, when I am approached by budding photographers who want to 'get into' photography, and asked what can I recommend for them to buy without breaking the bank, I always point them to the Canikon twin lens kits of the 700D/D3300 ilk. Those models are unmatched IMHO in terms of pure image quality per dollar, including lens quality.

This thread is not about 'which is the best'. That answer varies for each person. This thread is about DSLM/mirrorless camera users sharing their appreciation and helping out.

Actually, I think you officially declared camera WW3 when you referred to DSLR owners as the equivalent of dinosaurs who were destined for extinction because we couldn't face the reality that mirrorless was better. I only sent in the B52 bombers at that point.

But if intention of the post was about mirrorless appreciation, I haven't seen any photos from you to appreciate mirrorless so it's more of a mirrorless appreciation theory post :p

Btw, DSLR's go as small as 117x91x69 which is way smaller than the NX1 so it's as large as a DSLR.

[ameerat42]

Let not perceptions/impressions/interpretations lead to a degradation of the rapprochement already ascribed to in this thread.
Easiest way (we all know it): keep it cogent.

[MissionMan]

Let not perceptions/impressions/interpretations lead to a degradation of the rapprochement already ascribed to in this thread.
Easiest way (we all know it): keep it cogent.

Speak English dammit :p

[ameerat42]

Certainly, sir.

The thrust of my previous post pertains to the paradigm: "keep it on topic".

But this, I am convinced, you have divined, the use of the French loan word - now fully assimilated into
the vernacular generally accepted as "English" - notwithstanding.
:D

[jev]

This thread is not about 'which is the best'. That answer varies for each person. This thread is about DSLM/mirrorless camera users sharing their appreciation and helping out.
Now, that is just strange. I, as a Fuji X-T1 user, won't be able to help out a user from another brand "just because it is a mirrorless camera". The theory behind a mirrorless camera is the same, yet implementations differ from brand to brand just as much as with SLR's, compacts or any other type of camera.

The X-T1 for example differs wildly from most (dare I say "all"? Yes I do - backspace backspace backspace) all dSLR's and mirrorless camera's alike in that it approaches (half-) automatic exposure programs quite differently. On the X-T1, you do not choose between P, S, A or M programs in the X-T1, you just set each parameter of the exposure triangle to a fixed value or "automatic". In combination with its fantastic sensor and great viewfinder, that is what defines the X-T1.

I expect the Sony alpha series for example to much more feel like a dSLR than the X-T1. Apart from size and some minor technical idiosyncrasies, there is little difference with a dSLR in its day-to-day use.

So, helping out? With what?
Appreciation? Sure, I appreciate that it's small and light, that it IQ is outstanding and that it handles like any other professional tool. Don't expect me to stand in line, cheering on mirrorless camera's just "because it's mirrorless" though - that type of fanboy behavior is what people set off in the first place.

[Arg]

Yep, they are just tools. Participation in this thread is entirely voluntary. So is a positive attitude. What do you think of the Fuji?

[swifty]

The X-T1 for example differs wildly from most (dare I say "all"? Yes I do - backspace backspace backspace) all dSLR's and mirrorless camera's alike in that it approaches (half-) automatic exposure programs quite differently. On the X-T1, you do not choose between P, S, A or M programs in the X-T1, you just set each parameter of the exposure triangle to a fixed value or "automatic". In combination with its fantastic sensor and great viewfinder, that is what defines the X-T1.


Side note, not sure if you're aware of the Panasonic L1. I've only used a fixed lens predecessor of the L1 called the LC1 but both operate in much the same way.
I've harped on about how great and intuitive this approach was to setting exposure modes but unfortunately you and I must be amongst the minority who think its a great idea judging by the lacking number of cameras adopting this way of setting exposure.
Of course you do need lenses with aperture rings which rules out a great number of candidates out there.
Encouragingly some Panasonic Leica-branded m43 lenses do come with aperture rings that includes an 'auto' setting. The 15mm f1.7 and 42.5mm f1.2 comes to mind.

[Mark L]

I'll say it again: this thread was meant to be for mirrorless users to chat about their experiences, to help each other to transition from other systems, to be convivial.

Time to start another thread then.:)
Think carefully about what you call the thread.;)

[jev]

Side note, not sure if you're aware of the Panasonic L1. I've only used a fixed lens predecessor of the L1 called the LC1 but both operate in much the same way.
I knew it... thanks. I stand corrected!


Of course you do need lenses with aperture rings which rules out a great number of candidates out there.
Encouragingly some Panasonic Leica-branded m43 lenses do come with aperture rings that includes an 'auto' setting. The 15mm f1.7 and 42.5mm f1.2 comes to mind.
That's a specific 4/3 problem I guess. Fuji uses the Fuji X-system where most lenses have aperture rings. For lenses that do not, the system also provides the option to control aperture from the body. For foreign lenses there are mount converters available that contain a manually controlled aperture if necessary. I did play around last weekend with an X-Pro1 with a Leica lens on it using the Fujinon M adapter. It works, but I'm not sure it is worth the trouble. I might invest in a Kipon adapter at some point in the future once they figure out the Fuji AF protocol. It would be great to be able to use the Canon 300/4 or something similar on it.

[ricktas]

This thread is not about 'which is the best'. That answer varies for each person. This thread is about DSLM/mirrorless camera users sharing their appreciation and helping out.

Ok, so give me your advice. I want a mirrorless camera, the best I can get, with a larger sensor, that would be great for street photography. Must have tiltable lcd so I can shoot from the hip, something that works beautifully in low light (dark alleyways), has some waterproofing in case it rains. Of course I am awaiting to see if the rumours of the Nikon FF mirrorless are true, but until they prove to be, which current ones do you recommend, and why?

[ApolloLXII]

Reading through this thread, I feel like I'm kind of hearing the same sort of thing that might have been discussed by a bunch of balloonists when the aeroplane was invented. The flyboys would have said that the era of ballooning was over and that the plane was the way to go while the balloonists would have argued that hot air balloons were still relevant despite the advent of the new technology. While both forms of flight achieved the same thing but in different ways and means, history has shown that both of them are still around today. To mirror or not to mirror? That is the question and will it truly be a far, far better thing that I do with or without a reflective reflex? Aye, there's the rub. So let the slings and arrows of the forum fall wherever they may for one suspects that the questions and comparisons may never be settled betwixt one side or the other.

(On behalf of all long suffering English students everywhere, no apologies to William Shakespeare who most certainly has a lot to answer for!)

[ameerat42]

...history has shown that both of them are still around today...


Not to mention ROCKETRY!! (You're rather self-deprecating, RM:D).

[arthurking83]

..... So let the slings and arrows of the forum fall wherever they may for one suspects that the questions and comparisons may never be settled betwixt one side or the other.

(On behalf of all long suffering English students everywhere, no apologies to William Shakespeare who most certainly has a lot to answer for!)

I think at some point in the evolution of the EVF, for which mirrorless cameras are totally dependent upon, the pros and cons will eventually peter out into a set of advantages only in favour for the mirrorless designs.
Even the immovable point against EVFs ... in that they need power .. will some day be an insufficient argument against it.
At some point in the future the power requirement for an EVF will diminish to the point of insignificance as technologies are improved and introduced.

There are many arguments for the use of an EVF over an OVF, but at this point I think that while many are happy with the current state of technology, I reckon there are more people that aren't overly convinced by it.
But the points that are in favour of EVFs, which can't be argued against(and hence immovable), such as more accurate autofocus and less complex internal designs .. which should lead to lighter and cheaper cameras, are the ones I look forward too myself .. being a (currently)devout, DSLR worshipping kainotophobe dinosaur.

ps. my fear of change is restricted to the possibility that it's inevitable, but more specifically that it's only going to happen for the sake of itself .. not for the purpose of a greater good.

[swifty]

Ok, so give me your advice. I want a mirrorless camera, the best I can get, with a larger sensor, that would be great for street photography. Must have tiltable lcd so I can shoot from the hip, something that works beautifully in low light (dark alleyways), has some waterproofing in case it rains. Of course I am awaiting to see if the rumours of the Nikon FF mirrorless are true, but until they prove to be, which current ones do you recommend, and why?

Ok.. I know this question wasn't directed at me but here's my input anyways.
I don't think anything exists that fits your criteria exactly but here are a few thoughts.

The only FF mirrorless currently are the Sony FE and the A7s' current top dog for low light but does so at 12MP which as you know is low by today's standards but may/may not be suitable. My main issue with the FE's currently are the native lens choice. The 55/1.8 is very good.
The 35mm/1.4 and 28mm/2 are both just on the horizon but the 35mm looks quite large and negates some of the advantage of going mirrorless. And that's about it for the fast lenses so whilst you gain a stop or so on sensor performance there's less fast native lenses currently available so you may be back to square one.
They all have tilt LCDs but weather sealing is probably not one of its strong points.

The Fuji X-tran APS-C sensors approach FF performance for low light but there are some reports of small penalties such as colour smearing with some converters. This is my main problem since I'm a bit reluctant to change my LR workflow and Adobe's not one of the better RAW converters for X-trans sensors. But I may be tempted to just use the classic chrome jpeg setting. Its the first jpeg I've seen where I've consistently liked the results. But note not all the Fuji's use X-tran sensors.
But some of the advantages are the number of high quality fast primes that are reasonably sized.
My pick currently is the X-T1 which I think Jev owns so I'll leave the details to those with intimate experience with the camera. The LCD does tilt but the X-T1's closer to a DSLR replacement style camera so may be larger than what you want.
X-Pro 2's not likely due until at least later in the year so no point speculating.
The current enthusiast rangefinder style bodied X cameras (X-Pro 1 and X-E2) don't have tilt LCDs but their lower end more recent ones do. The trend seem to be to have the tilt LCDs so perhaps the replacements will get them.

Going smaller and you have the m43's. But I suspect you may feel the sensors are too small.
Advantages are lots of small fast primes which make up a little of the sensor disadvantage.
The higher end Olympus cameras in particularly are very well weather sealed.
There are patents for even faster primes from Olympus but again just speculations at this stage.
They pretty much all have tilt LCDs.

Sony E-mount? Similar issue with lenses.
Samsung NX: watch this space. Samsung's very ambitious but not proven. The NX1 seem to be a specs tour de force but is intended as a DSLR replacement style camera, so probably not what you're after. I'm not very familiar with their lens range.

[I @ M]

The Fuji X-tran APS-C sensors approach FF performance for low light but there are some reports of small penalties such as colour smearing with some converters. This is my main problem since I'm a bit reluctant to change my LR workflow and Adobe's not one of the better RAW converters for X-trans sensors.

The colour smearing is entirely an software issue, you do not see it in ( low iso ) jpegs from the camera. I will attach a couple of 3200 iso jpegs from the camera, no after the shot processing other than a small compositional crop. Any smearing in shots like that will come from noise reduction which is unable to be turned off.

It is NOT a Fuji fault or trait !!!!!

Good software shows no smearing in raw files at any iso, A$obe products do show it! My pick, which really does do a good job with Fuji colours is Photo Ninja. Cheap, fast enough and consistent with no huge learning curve.



But I may be tempted to just use the classic chrome jpeg setting. Its the first jpeg I've seen where I've consistently liked the results. But note not all the Fuji's use X-tran sensors.


I have been very happy with many many many jpeg images from the x100s ( no chrome simulation settings ) using a few of their film simulations depending on subject.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9582534/Bali_2013_07_16%20121057.JPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9582534/Bali_2013_07_16%20120016.JPG

[jev]

Actually, I consider the X-T1 to be a great street-photography tool. Slap on a 27/2.8 pancake and you'll have an unobtrusive looking box that is great for this goal. The 27/2.8 may not be weathersealed but it can withstand a drizzle or two. If you want something longer, the 35/1.4 is a good choice. Personally, I have a 18-55/2.8-4 which is a good allround lens (although it already looks like some serious glass which makes street photography harder).

I don't have enough experience with the camera yet to provide all the nitty gritty details, but every time I see the results from a couple of fellow X-T1 users I'm pretty impressed. Weather permitting I might just give it a go this weekend.

As for the assumed smearing: I work in JPEG these days and have no complaints. Capture One does an outstanding job on the RAF conversion but so far i haven't really found the need for it.

I'm starting to sound like a fanboy, which I certainly am not. So I'll just shut up now and let I@M do the Fuji-talking :lol:

[swifty]

The colour smearing is entirely an software issue, you do not see it in ( low iso ) jpegs from the camera. I will attach a couple of 3200 iso jpegs from the camera, no after the shot processing other than a small compositional crop. Any smearing in shots like that will come from noise reduction which is unable to be turned off.

It is NOT a Fuji fault or trait !!!!!

Good software shows no smearing in raw files at any iso, A$obe products do show it! My pick, which really does do a good job with Fuji colours is Photo Ninja. Cheap, fast enough and consistent with no huge learning curve.



I was under the impression demosiacing X-tran sensors are a little tricky due to the colour filtration pattern where not every pixel has all the colour information from adjacent pixels. They may be an extra pixel further away.
I wasn't implying it is a fault of Fuji cameras, just that there are pros and cons in changing that filter array from Bayer to X-Tran. The main advantage of course being more green pixels, hence more luminance info and why they bat above their weight division, noise wise.
Anyways, as software algorithm become smarter I'm sure this will be less of an issue (if at all in the first place). Unless the situation has changed where Adobe has improve X-tran conversion, unfortunately for me the workflow issue remains.
But as I don't own a camera with X-tran sensor, I'm not as up to date on how current software deals with the X-tran files, I'll have to bow out of this side discussion.

[Glen1]

Ok, so I'm a DSLR user who has been dragged into this conversation, as I'm now interested in a mirror less as a compact carry-around. What is the viewpoint on the Olympus OM-D EM-10?

Regards
Glen1

[mpb]

There are many arguments for the use of an EVF over an OVF, but at this point I think that while many are happy with the current state of technology, I reckon there are more people that aren't overly convinced by it.

Really, what do you base this on? I would suggest that of all the photos taken at the moment, the vast majority (very very vast majority) would be taken with non OVF cameras. In fact most don't have any view finders at all, just live view. This would suggest that most people prefer live view on an LCD over OVF or EVF. :o

Not saying I agree with them, just pointing out the facts.

[MissionMan]

Really, what do you base this on? I would suggest that of all the photos taken at the moment, the vast majority (very very vast majority) would be taken with non OVF cameras. In fact most don't have any view finders at all, just live view. This would suggest that most people prefer live view on an LCD over OVF or EVF. :o

Not saying I agree with them, just pointing out the facts.

On the contrary, given the price range of the majority of digital cameras, it simply points to the fact that they are manufactured using the cheapest possible method. A digital camera needs an LCD to display photos, so the cheapest option is to use this as the viewfinder.

[mpb]

OK, so they are happy (no really prefer) to use a camera without a view finder.
Most people are happy to use their phones to take photos and are not very discerning about the quality of the photos, let alone the quality of the equipment.

[MissionMan]

OK, so they are happy (no really prefer) to use a camera without a view finder.
Most people are happy to use their phones to take photos and are not very discerning about the quality of the photos, let alone the quality of the equipment.

Most people are happy to use their phones because they either don't give a shit about the quality or don't want to carry another camera. I often use my phone, but if I had a choice between my phone and a DSLR that i have with me, I would take the DSLR any day of the week.

That said, the types of users we are referring to in this topic are unlikely to be P&S photographer and are probably a little more discerning about photo quality.

[Hawthy]

That is true. However, I wonder if we are becoming the fringe-dwellers. I recently bought some off-camera lighting equipment and was looking at articles on the web about how to use it. One writer pointed out that it was only other photographers who looked at the reflected highlights in eyes to see how the shot was lit. Other people see it as just another nice shot. That brought a lot of things home to me.

My iPhone takes images as least as well as a Panasonic Lumix TZ-30 travel zoom that I bought two years ago. Plus I can text or email the photos straight away from the phone. I really love learning the technical details of photography via the DSLR but I think that most people don't acknowledge how hard it is to produce a really great shot when their phone can easily produce a reasonably good shot.

[MissionMan]

That is true. However, I wonder if we are becoming the fringe-dwellers. I recently bought some off-camera lighting equipment and was looking at articles on the web about how to use it. One writer pointed out that it was only other photographers who looked at the reflected highlights in eyes to see how the shot was lit. Other people see it as just another nice shot. That brought a lot of things home to me.

My iPhone takes images as least as well as a Panasonic Lumix TZ-30 travel zoom that I bought two years ago. Plus I can text or email the photos straight away from the phone. I really love learning the technical details of photography via the DSLR but I think that most people don't acknowledge how hard it is to produce a really great shot when their phone can easily produce a reasonably good shot.

I agree that it's easier to take good photos due to the technology but I disagree that people don't recognise it. If you showed people two photos, I have no doubt they would notice the quality difference between them, but whether they would pay for it is a difference is the question because the lower quality image is not longer an unacceptable level of quality.

[I @ M]

Capture One does an outstanding job on the RAF conversion but so far i haven't really found the need for it.

Good to know that there have been advancements made by C1 for processing, I haven' taken much notice software ( apart from A$obe users saying Fuji is at fault ) since I started using P Ninja.


I'm starting to sound like a fanboy, which I certainly am not. So I'll just shut up now and let I@M do the Fuji-talking :lol:

Joost, you of all people should know by now that I am not a fan boy of any one system or manufacturer. :p


I was under the impression demosiacing X-tran sensors are a little tricky due to the colour filtration pattern where not every pixel has all the colour information from adjacent pixels. They may be an extra pixel further away.
I wasn't implying it is a fault of Fuji cameras, just that there are pros and cons in changing that filter array from Bayer to X-Tran. The main advantage of course being more green pixels, hence more luminance info and why they bat above their weight division, noise wise.
Anyways, as software algorithm become smarter I'm sure this will be less of an issue (if at all in the first place). Unless the situation has changed where Adobe has improve X-tran conversion, unfortunately for me the workflow issue remains.

Swifty, I think that you are probably right on the money with your thoughts that demosiaicing the X trans files has presented a few problems for companies that have a " Bayer mindset", A$obe being one, but it does appear that they are improving their products albeit slowly. I think there is sufficient proof out there that good RAF file conversion can be done as evidenced by Fuji being able to build a good converter in camera to handle their proprietary files and then software makers who have spent the time to "get it right" rather than just do a 1/2 arsed job as an addition to their existing product.



I'll have to bow out of this side discussion.

Noooo, continue, share your thoughts and views, discussion empowers knowledge and with that photographers everywhere can make informed and rational decisions about gear and as the Fuji X trans sensor is at the heart of a totally mirrorless ( presently ) range of cameras it deserves to be discussed. :)

[arthurking83]

Really, what do you base this on? I would suggest that of all the photos taken at the moment, the vast majority (very very vast majority) would be taken with non OVF cameras. In fact most don't have any view finders at all, just live view. This would suggest that most people prefer live view on an LCD over OVF or EVF. :o

Not saying I agree with them, just pointing out the facts.

Ahhh! apologies.
I was referring to a more discerning type of photographer... more of the pro/amateur type.

Persons that are more than happy to take high quality photos with their smart phones most likely wouldn't care if their good cameras have mirrors or not.
They've conditioned themselves now, not to know/see/understand the difference the viewfinder can make.

So yes .. you are right. Whilst the vast majority of photos the world has to put up with are captured via non OVF cameras.
The vast majority of interchangeable lens cameras(of which we would categorise this group into serious photographers!!) still prefer OVF cameras.
Whether this is because an OVF has much better overall quality is unclear.
Most likely not, and price and brand is still the most likely reason for DSLRs still selling more than 3x the numbers of mirrorless cameras.
And this is when you still take into account the ever increasing numbers of mirrorless camera models coming to market over the past couple of years!

The number of models of DSLRs has stagnated now for about 5 years or so .. hence there is no new market for DSLR makers to push into.
Whereas mirrorless camera makers have been pushing into more market segments in those past 5 years, and still seemingly doing so with more new model types.
So that would partially account for increased sales in the mirrorless sector.

But once those market segments also mature, sales will follow the path of all the other camera segments too .. flat and or downwards.

So my (factual point) was not so much based on total photography levels .. but more so on what people still prefer to buy when they are looking into a new 'good camera'!
(where new good camera = anything other than the smart phone and can fit other lenses).

Worldwide sales of these higher end cameras are just over 3x in favour of the DSLR type.

[ricktas]

thanks for the feedback on my post asking what Mirrorless I should get.

[ricktas]

One of the big drawbacks for using a phone to take photos is the lack of optical zoom. The form factor of a mobile is such that putting a decent optical zoom on one, just doesn't really work. And the only one I recall ever seeing was from Samsung. With mirrorless and DSLR we get to choose a lens that suits our intended subject and distance.

A LOT more mobile phones are sold each year than DSLR and mirrorless. I would actually suggest that the tech development of sensors etc is driven these days by the mobile phone market. They push the boundaries of what they can fit on a tiny sensor and how well it performs in low light etc, and that tech research and development is then pushed through to the bigger camera sensors. My phone has a 16mp camera, on a tiny physical form (compared to m43, aps,ff). Considering the millions of phone sold each year, there is certainly a marketing advantage of saying you have the best camera in a phone, and we see that from Apple, Samsung etc in their advertising. I think the push to fit a better camera sensor into every phone is driving the R&D of sensors as a whole.

Under less than optimal conditions, you start to see noise, both granular and colour with these tiny sensors in phones, which is where those of us that value our photography a bit more start looking at larger sensors than what phones offer.

I want to dive into mirrorless ownership over a bridge camera, or a phone, simply for one reason, interchangeable lenses, in particular zoom!That alone gives me a great advantage over taking shots with my phone. The second advantage over a phone is low light performance, that is where phone cameras fall down every time. Even though my phone can capture a good pixel quality image.

114923

[Arg]

Ok, so give me your advice. I want a mirrorless camera, the best I can get, with a larger sensor, that would be great for street photography. Must have tiltable lcd so I can shoot from the hip, something that works beautifully in low light (dark alleyways), has some waterproofing in case it rains. Of course I am awaiting to see if the rumours of the Nikon FF mirrorless are true, but until they prove to be, which current ones do you recommend, and why?

Ah, found it. Thanks for the friendly reminder, I was too busy yesterday.

I don't know ! That's a special purpose camera, I have never pursued that angle. The Sony A7s is the obvious first pick. I doubt if anything ticks all your boxes, including zoom lenses, perhaps some other readers can chime in?

An intriguing option would be the new Olympus EM5 II with the new Voigtlander 10.5mm f/0.95 lens. No AF, no zoom, no full frame, why would I even go there? [emoji11]

- - - Updated - - -


Most people are happy to use their phones because they either don't give a shit about the quality or don't want to carry another camera. I often use my phone,...

If you 'give a shit' about those photos with your phone, Panasonic make a phone with a 1" sensor and a 28mm equiv f/2.8 lens (http://www.techradar.com/au/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/the-lumix-cm1-is-the-first-android-phone-with-an-1-inch-camera-sensor-1265614). Interesting?

- - - Updated - - -


Ok.. I know this question wasn't directed at me but here's my input anyways.
I don't think anything exists that fits your criteria exactly but here are a few thoughts.

The only FF mirrorless currently are the Sony FE and the A7s' current top dog for low light but does so at 12MP which as you know is low by today's standards but may/may not be suitable. My main issue with the FE's currently are the native lens choice. The 55/1.8 is very good.
The 35mm/1.4 and 28mm/2 are both just on the horizon but the 35mm looks quite large and negates some of the advantage of going mirrorless. And that's about it for the fast lenses so whilst you gain a stop or so on sensor performance there's less fast native lenses currently available so you may be back to square one.
They all have tilt LCDs but weather sealing is probably not one of its strong points.

The Fuji X-tran APS-C sensors approach FF performance for low light but there are some reports of small penalties such as colour smearing with some converters. This is my main problem since I'm a bit reluctant to change my LR workflow and Adobe's not one of the better RAW converters for X-trans sensors. But I may be tempted to just use the classic chrome jpeg setting. Its the first jpeg I've seen where I've consistently liked the results. But note not all the Fuji's use X-tran sensors.
But some of the advantages are the number of high quality fast primes that are reasonably sized.
My pick currently is the X-T1 which I think Jev owns so I'll leave the details to those with intimate experience with the camera. The LCD does tilt but the X-T1's closer to a DSLR replacement style camera so may be larger than what you want.
X-Pro 2's not likely due until at least later in the year so no point speculating.
The current enthusiast rangefinder style bodied X cameras (X-Pro 1 and X-E2) don't have tilt LCDs but their lower end more recent ones do. The trend seem to be to have the tilt LCDs so perhaps the replacements will get them.

Going smaller and you have the m43's. But I suspect you may feel the sensors are too small.
Advantages are lots of small fast primes which make up a little of the sensor disadvantage.
The higher end Olympus cameras in particularly are very well weather sealed.
There are patents for even faster primes from Olympus but again just speculations at this stage.
They pretty much all have tilt LCDs.

Sony E-mount? Similar issue with lenses.
Samsung NX: watch this space. Samsung's very ambitious but not proven. The NX1 seem to be a specs tour de force but is intended as a DSLR replacement style camera, so probably not what you're after. I'm not very familiar with their lens range.

Thanks swifty, I just saw this as I was catching up with the thread. Good summary, I agree.

Shooting in the dark raises the question of what the shooter wants the final image to look like. If the demand is "I want to see no noise when I pixel-peep at the shadows after boosting them by 5 stops on my computer", then that is more of a lab technician-type demand of technology of its own sake. OTOH if the final image is going to show dark areas as dark or pretty dark, and cropping is modest as befits a well-composed field shot, then current cameras can be put to good use in this situation.

My experience is that photos taken in the dark look best with large shadowy areas, and look weird when 'turned into daylight'. Also, in colour photography, the night light has a spectrum that I don't find makes the subject look attractive in a 'colourful' way. No doubt that's not universal, but in the end I think a lot of great night photography can be done with current cameras.

- - - Updated - - -


Ok, so I'm a DSLR user who has been dragged into this conversation, as I'm now interested in a mirror less as a compact carry-around. What is the viewpoint on the Olympus OM-D EM-10?

Hi Glen, welcome! I'm hoping others who actually own it will chip in, but from what I have seen and heard from users, my opinion of it from a distance is that it is probably the very best option, in general camera terms, for a DSLR user, at its price point.

But, the emboldened part of your post gives me pause. Depending on how compact you need 'compact' to be, the Lumix GM5 is hard to believe when you hold it in hand. Which is the most I have personally done with one. Also, the matching Lumix 12-32mm pancake zoom is a genuine sharpie according to reviews and user reports.

Have you checked out the E-M10 in person?

[MissionMan]

Shooting in the dark raises the question of what the shooter wants the final image to look like. If the demand is "I want to see no noise when I pixel-peep at the shadows after boosting them by 5 stops on my computer", then that is more of a lab technician-type demand of technology of its own sake. OTOH if the final image is going to show dark areas as dark or pretty dark, and cropping is modest as befits a well-composed field shot, then current cameras can be put to good use in this situation.

My experience is that photos taken in the dark look best with large shadowy areas, and look weird when 'turned into daylight'. Also, in colour photography, the night light has a spectrum that I don't find makes the subject look attractive in a 'colourful' way. No doubt that's not universal, but in the end I think a lot of great night photography can be done with current cameras.

I'm guessing your camera doesn't leave auto mode much then. Lifting shadows has been done for years to counter for problems encountered with exposure. I'm assuming you know what bracketing is and that it's not only used for HDR's.

Then you would consider the possibility of user errors which happens remarkable often. For example, going out, taking some photos and only realising afterwards that you left bracketing on from your last set of photos and you now have a whole heap of photos over and under exposed. This could be something as simply as pulling out your camera to get a photo where you don't have the time to check settings or even change lenses.

Then we could use the example of metering as another way that you could get photos considerably under exposed. Taking photos with matrix metering on could result in the subject under exposed so if you're taking photos in a wider variety of conditions, have matrix metering enabled at the time could have created areas with considerable under exposure.

I often pick up issues with shooting sports where you have to shoot into the sun (no choice in some cases) which can result in having to recover shadows with low ISO.

The point with this is there are a whole heap of reasons that being able to lift shadows is a good thing. That's why increases in dynamic range are good, much the same as the reduction in noise at high ISO is good. You can't simply blow it off as pixel peeping when it provides value to people. Having the ability to meter based on highlights to know that you won't have any blown areas in a photo and recover shadows is a substantial advantage.

[Glen1]

Hi Arg,
I haven't checked out the Lumix as yet, but have noticed a few used EM-10's for sale on the net at reduced prices, which is more my budget.
I'll have to go and check it out in the flesh.

Regards
Glen1

[Arg]

@MM, taking your paragraphs in order:

You guess poorly, I use P,A,S, and M, mostly.

User errors I can deal with using the 'trash can' usually found in the bottom right of my computer screen, also found on a button on the back of my camera.

Taking photos in the dark should be done with preparation and care, not thoughtlessly and casually. Not if you want good results.

Shooting sports into the sun was not the topic of my post. You knew that.

I lift shadows when needed, with care and moderation. For night photos, don't meter for highlights, instead, blow the light globes (so to speak :)). It is often said that the skilled photographer does not demand better equipment, instead, uses the available equipment intelligently to get great final images. Philosophically, I prefer that approach. Or there's the A7S, heh.

- - - Updated - - -


Hi Arg,
I haven't checked out the Lumix as yet, but have noticed a few used EM-10's for sale on the net at reduced prices, which is more my budget.
I'll have to go and check it out in the flesh.

Regards
Glen1

Yes, I think for the budget level of a used E-M10, you can't beat it! The GM5 is a different price level at the moment.

[MissionMan]

[QUOTE=Arg;1278043]@MM, taking your paragraphs in order:

You guess poorly, I use P,A,S, and M, mostly.

User errors I can deal with using the 'trash can' usually found in the bottom right of my computer screen, also found on a button on the back of my camera.

Taking photos in the dark should be done with preparation and care, not thoughtlessly and casually. Not if you want good results.

Shooting sports into the sun was not the topic of my post. You knew that.

I lift shadows when needed, with care and moderation. For night photos, don't meter for highlights, instead, blow the light globes (so to speak :)). It is often said that the skilled photographer does not demand better equipment, instead, uses the available equipment intelligently to get great final images. Philosophically, I prefer that approach. Or there's the A7S, heh.

- - - Updated - - -

okay, so lets cover some of the items:

1. Who says you can afford to lose a photo? You're making the assumption that because you can afford to delete a photo, everyone can. How about a professional? You think they don't make mistakes? How about everyone else? Just because you don't need it, doesn't mean you can claim it's pixel peeping (which you did), there are valid reasons for wanting to keep a photo. It might be the only photo of your daughter in a particular situation that you want. Personally, I don't get to go out and take photos often, and when I do, I try to take advantage of it. If the photos are crap, I see what I can do to recover them, not because I want to know how to recover, but because sometimes you understand more about how the photo should have been composed.

2. Taking photos in the dark doesn't always allow for preparation. It depends on the kind of photography you do, how much time you have etc. Again, you make the assumption that because you don't need it, everyone else doesn't. I.e. the pixel peeping comment. I've rushed down to the beach, had enough time to setup and take 2 photos and that was it. The photos turned out great, but I had no time to check things.

3. Shooting sports into the sun is still valid for pulling out shadows whether you meant it or not. Shoot a photo of someone into the sun and you get a silhouette or a blown out photo. That's why they have flash. But flash only works where you can light the subject with enough of a power to overpower the sun. Try do that with a surfer on a wave face from a distance. Yeah, flash is great, but it's not always available. Other examples include onstage performances, large areas etc.

4. If you are going to keeping going on about skills over equipment, you need to have something to back it up. You can say you don't want to post and that's all fine and well, but when you continue to use your skills as reason why you don't need a particular set of equipment, well, you know where this is going...

[swifty]

Noooo, continue, share your thoughts and views, discussion empowers knowledge and with that photographers everywhere can make informed and rational decisions about gear and as the Fuji X trans sensor is at the heart of a totally mirrorless ( presently ) range of cameras it deserves to be discussed. :)

Haha.. only in this side discussion about X-tran processing mate. I hate to repeat things I've read that perhaps have little or no real world relevance (eg. the colour smearing). This is where real world users should chime in to give context to supposed issues/non-issues.
Going back to our discussion about Fuji jpeg output. I've always been quite pleased with their jpegs (from my S5 Pro days) but the advantages of RAW, in particular the highlight recovery of my then camera really meant shooting jpegs meant underutilising the camera.
But I really like Classic Chrome and I had thought it would be great to shoot RAW + jpeg and wifi-ing jpegs processed in Classic Chrome to my phone for immediate use. As you know Fuji has a habit of updating firmware continuously and regularly so I think its just a matter of time before you get it on your X100s.



I want to dive into mirrorless ownership over a bridge camera, or a phone, simply for one reason, interchangeable lenses, in particular zoom!That alone gives me a great advantage over taking shots with my phone. The second advantage over a phone is low light performance, that is where phone cameras fall down every time. Even though my phone can capture a good pixel quality image.

Oh, that changes the landscape quite a bit I think. My sheep mentality had assumed you'd only be interested in fast primes in the semi wide to normal range.
But I feel when zooms are considered, the larger sensored mirrorless cameras really start to loose a lot of the advantage of going mirrorless. Unless of course we start to see collapsible designs but perhaps the complex number of elements and groups of optics limits how much volume saving you could get even by making it collapsible. Might not be worth the trouble.
But with the recent Nikon patent of a PF 24-70 (for DSLR), maybe we are at the cusp of seeing much smaller zoom lens designs using Phase Fresnel optics (or Diffraction Optics in Canon speak).
For constant aperture zoom lens, you'd have to go down to m43 sized sensors for something that is still quite compact (Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 and Olympus 12-40 f2.8). And even with those, there are fair amounts of software correction for distortion to achieve the petite lens sizes, but remains very sharp despite these corrections I have to add though.

[Arg]

@MM, I anticipated all your answers, but still wrote what I did because, IMHO, it remains valid. I mean, if you really want your camera to be able to compensate for you not having properly prepared or anticipated for a shot, then you wouldn't have any photos taken with your phone, because you might miss 'the only photo of your daughter in a particular situation that you want', so you would always have the D750 on one shoulder, plus every lens you have on the other shoulder, plus all the other lenses you don't have, in a wheelie suitcase hooked onto your belt, just in case you need one -- plus a few extra bodies for when you need 36 MP (D810) or ISO100,000+ (Sony A7S). I think you are trying a bit too hard to disagree with me with minor exceptions to the general truths in my post, based on hypotheticals, yet you don't even believe in those exceptions yourself based on your choices (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136397-C-mon-let-s-wake-this-forum-up&p=1267925#post1267925), which, incidentally, I think are very reasonable.

P.S. how 'bout that Panasonic phone, eh? :th3:

- - - Updated - - -


...something that is still quite compact (Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 and Olympus 12-40 f2.8). And even with those, there are fair amounts of software correction for distortion to achieve the petite lens sizes, but remains very sharp despite these corrections I have to add though.

And with interchangeable-lens cameras, you can really only do that with a DSLM. Try it with a DSLR and the viewfinder frame will not match the final image frame, and distortions or CA and vignetting might be visually unacceptable to the camera users (customers). So the makers won't do that with DSLR cameras. It's a real advantage, and not just in size and weight, but image quality too. People don't 'get it' when they are critical of software correction in lenses designed with software correction as an integral component. Technically, an important point that they seem to be overlooking, is that to overcome distortion, vignetting and astigmatism using purely optical techniques will also increase lens softness, possibly more than doing it in software. The use of a mirrorless viewfinder has released lens designers to innovate and progress the technology or art of lens design. I'm willing to bet that, for any given lens production cost and volume, the best image quality in the final output would be from an integrated lens design (some corrections in the optics, some in the software). We are all benefiting from this, yet some see such lenses as inherently inferior. Ironic. :p

[MissionMan]

@MM, I anticipated all your answers, but still wrote what I did because, IMHO, it remains valid. I mean, if you really want your camera to be able to compensate for you not having properly prepared or anticipated for a shot, then you wouldn't have any photos taken with your phone, because you might miss 'the only photo of your daughter in a particular situation that you want', so you would always have the D750 on one shoulder, plus every lens you have on the other shoulder, plus all the other lenses you don't have, in a wheelie suitcase hooked onto your belt, just in case you need one -- plus a few extra bodies for when you need 36 MP (D810) or ISO100,000+ (Sony A7S). I think you are trying a bit too hard to disagree with me with minor exceptions to the general truths in my post, based on hypotheticals, yet you don't even believe in those exceptions yourself based on your choices (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136397-C-mon-let-s-wake-this-forum-up&p=1267925#post1267925), which, incidentally, I think are very reasonable.

P.S. how 'bout that Panasonic phone, eh? :th3:

I believe in the exceptions, I simply state that to call someone pixel peeping (which you did) because they demand more from their equipment than you is wrong and to state that they are attempting to get their gear to compensate is insulting to say the least, particularly when you have never posted a photo to this website.

To believe that only your requirements are the correct ones and anyone outside of these boundaries is unprepared or improperly anticipating a shot is also wrong. Some of the best photos I've seen are those that were taken in less than ideal situations with the wrong lens because there wasn't time to change a lens. To assume that all photos allow you to be adequately prepared is flawed. Photography is life and without being psychic, there is no way to predict the unpredictable. Unlike weddings where you have control of the elements, not all photography allows you to plan the perfect shot. I'm assuming you shoot RAW? If so, why? Isn't it for exactly the reason that you can fix something that you didn't have a chance to do at the time of taking a photo, like white balance variations due to changes in light? Or if what you are trying to say is correct, you should be shooting JPG and doing zero post processing because any post processing is as a result of you being unprepared or having raw compensate for you not being properly prepared or not having anticipated a shot.

The point is, camera technology is getting better and allows for you to compensate. Auto white balance, something we take for granted (no matter how bad it can be at times), along with every other pieces of functionality like auto focus, metering (which no longer requires you to carry a light meter), high ISO, etc. There are 36MP cameras that allow for you to crop because you don't have a 400mm lens with you. That's not being unprepared, that's making the best of your situation. There are high ISO's that compensate for that fact that you cannot use a flash in some circumstances. Again, that isn't lack of preparation, you can be prepared and not bring a flash because the circumstances don't allow you to use one.

So if you are practicing what you preach, I assume you shoot manual, carry a light meter, white balance every photo before taking it and shoot everything at night with flash.

[mpb]

Hey @Arg and @MM, its been somewhat entertaining however it has probably got to that stage where it is not really benefiting anyone.
Perhaps it is time to declare a cease fire and agree to disagree.
Photography does not have a right and wrong most of the time which is why I enjoy it and enjoy what other people do and the way they do it.

This interest we all share, and this forum, is supposed to be fun.

Anyway, have some fun and get out and take some photos.

[ameerat42]

...it has probably got to that stage where it is not really benefiting anyone...
...
This interest we all share, and this forum, is supposed to be fun.

Anyway, have some fun and get out and take some photos...

A very good summary and suggestion.

[Arg]

Done. I'll even let him have the last word. [emoji11]

Any readers using the Sony A7 series, what do you think of it?

[bcys1961]

Agree ! I stopped bothering to read this thread a few weeks ago!

[jev]

I want to dive into mirrorless ownership over a bridge camera, or a phone, simply for one reason, interchangeable lenses, in particular zoom!That alone gives me a great advantage over taking shots with my phone. The second advantage over a phone is low light performance, that is where phone cameras fall down every time. Even though my phone can capture a good pixel quality image.
http://camkix.com/product_category/cell-phone-lenses :tog:

(P.S.: You attachment doesn't work)

[ricktas]

http://camkix.com/product_category/cell-phone-lenses :tog:

(P.S.: You attachment doesn't work)

Yep, we are trying to sort out this attachment problem. Thanks for the link too, Joost! I have tried some of these lenses, that a friend has, and whilst they work, the Image Quality suffered.

[arthurking83]

.....
For constant aperture zoom lens, you'd have to go down to m43 sized sensors for something that is still quite compact (Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 and Olympus 12-40 f2.8). And even with those, there are fair amounts of software correction for distortion to achieve the petite lens sizes, but remains very sharp despite these corrections I have to add though.

I'm not a fan of disallowing in camera corrections, and a major reason I(personally) would avoid m4/3 cameras as they don't allow control of correction effects.
Of the Nikon cameras I have with allowances for correction they all have(to a degree) the ability to turn most effects ON/OFF .. with the exception of very high ISO noise reduction.
(For this really high ISO noise reduction control, you need Nikon's raw converters).


I've checked a few Olympus samples, and while the images look OK with this distortion correction, you're always kept wondering how much better can it be.

This is what Imaging Resource had to say about Olympus's in camera correction:


There is however going to be some loss of resolution in the corners as a result of such correction, because pixels in the corners of the frame are being "stretched" to correct for the distortion. Obviously, a lens that doesn't require such correction that is also sharp in the corners to begin with would be preferable, but relaxing constraints on barrel and pincushion distortion likely brings other benefits in the lens design, such as cost, size and weight.


The other issue with this(or such) systems is that it makes it harder for third parties to produce lenses for the camera system.

For example, Sigma would need to, not only spend money on the design and manufacture of any lenses for m4/3, but the added cost of software correction(if they are privy to the software ecosystem!!).
And while the two m4/3 makers may currently allow access to the software from third party lens makers .. this is not guaranteed into the future with any updated models.

So third party lens makers, who supply a good deal of optional lenses and lens types for DSLR systems, would be more reluctant to produce lenses of varying types and price ranges!

A quick look at Sigma's lens range sees many lenses for Canon/Pentax/Nikon/Sony-Minolta(ie. Sony DSLR) .. maybe 60 or more different lenses in their current lineup, and they have only three lenses for m4/3rds (and those same three for Sony's mirrorless E mount)

Two easily deduced reasons for this(in today's camera climate):

1/. Going by the very low and almost boring lens specs of 19 or 30mm and f/2.8!!) the lenses are designed with inherently well corrected optics. So they will natively produce little or no distortion and or CA. This is most likely due to the probability that Sigma won't have the in camera corrections allowances .. so in effect are 'on their own' in terms of maximising the optical qualities of their products. Those two quoted sample lenses are the FF equivalents of a 38mm f/5.6 and 60mm f/5.6 lens, and Sigma also has a 60mm f/2.8, which again has a rather ho hum FF equivalence rendering capability of a 120mm f/5.6.
Note that Tamron only produces one lens for the m4/3rd system, and this is a new superzoom lens(14-150mm). It'll be interesting to see optical results from this lens.
Tokina only produce one lens for m4/3, and this is a 300mm mirror lens which is manual focus.

The only reasonable conclusion for the lack of alternative lenses in the MFT arena is that Olympus and Panasonic have most bases covered, and or that the entry level for the technology required is too hard, which increases costs and hence product prices.

2/. The other reason for this lack of many third party lenses is that mirrorless isn't some perpetually increasing camera market that we're lead to believe it is!
If it were, others would attempt to cash in on the phenomenon.

And while it's easy to dismiss third party lens makers as irrelevant, my contention is that they most certainly are not!
Recent offerings from both Sigma and Tamron not only give us (DSLR users) lenses we just can't get from out choice camera brand, but in many instances do it batter in some way or another!
And Tokina have always had a very solid reputation for many years now .. they just seem a bit reluctant to be more adventurous.

While I'm not a current fan of mirrorless cameras(because of the current level of EVF tech) .. I'm even less of a fan of Micro Four Thirds mirrorless cameras.
Lack of control over what is in effect your property is a major limitation!

[swifty]

Its a compromise in the downsizing process.
Personally I don't believe going mirrorless' main goal is to go small. I mean, it is one advantage but as you've mentioned there are many other reasons such as reduced complexity and associated costs.
But in the m43 arena, size is very much high on the agenda I believe.
It took me a long time to grapple with this issue of software correction.
Relinquishing control is something I don't do well but its just another thing that doesn't bother me nearly as much anymore in practical use. So I guess it depends on the individual.

I suspect the lack of third party lens is closer to no.2 of your reasoning.
Compared to DSLRs, they are still quite small by volume. Perhaps they might start to gain critical mass in regional markets such as Asia and the Japanese domestic market soon.. who knows. I've become very sceptical of sale/shipment numbers and growth charts put out by interested parties so I can't say I trust any of the supposedly grown/decline trends.
But if the volume is there I'm sure we will see better third party support.

[ameerat42]

Swifty, what is software correction in this context?
Am.

[swifty]

Am: some of the m43 lenses are not well corrected for geometric distortion such as barrel, pincushion etc.
The cameras apply native software correction automatically to account for these distortions.
Some third party software are able to render an uncorrected RAW image where the distortions have been measured, some of which have been quite significant.

[ameerat42]

I see. Thanks for that.

[arthurking83]

I think I remember one of the m4/3 lenses .. a Panasonic lens maybe .. had barrel distortion of about 8% uncorrected, which reduced to about 1% or something when software that recognised the camera correction data was allowed to do it's thing.

I suppose if the need is simply just general photography then auto correction should be sufficient, and cameras are becoming more than powerful and capable enough to do some reasonable internal processing.
Some of the NR routines in camera nowadays are quite good(at least in Nikon terms).
Obviously not as clever and finely tuned as a more powerful computer based NR software ... but from some of the samples I've plucked along the way .. they're still quite good.

But when it comes to more 'serious' applications, for me this means something like macro or astro photography .. less processing is generally better.

FWIW: I turn off CA correction and distortion control in my cameras(where available) and prefer to see the warts as they are captured .. and obviously deal with them if they need it.
It still pains me that I can't fully turn NR off in camera tho when using high ISOs .. even tho NR in camera is always set to OFF.
From what I've noticed in some of my comparions trials too, I can (seemingly) turn off the hidden NR applied to raw images when shooting at high ISO, via Nikon's software, but it appears to be less effective when viewed with something like Lr(in my case 4).
I can't remember if my trial of Lr5 did the same thing .. but I have a feeling that Lr doesn't allow the option to fully turn off any applied hidden NR on the raw files.
(they always seem to have a slightly cleaner noise appearance in Lr than in Nikon software when all NR is set to off.

BTW: all cameras have this hidden application of NR when shooting at really high ISO(that I know of).

Another tidbit(and risking taking this thread wayyy OT!! :p) .. there is a group dedicated to hacking into Nikon cameras firmwares(nikonhacker) where I've trialled a firmware hack to give pure raw files .. ie without any preprocessing .. for capturing astro images.
It's a strange and awkward implementation at the moment where you can't turn the camera off, or allow it to go to sleep(ie. meter off) mode or else this blackpoint hack reverts back to a non hacked firmware state.

So the operation is that you load the blackpoint firmware hack via the computer, and just keep the in an camera active state.
You take your series of image stacks and you have pure raw Nikon files for doing astro images.
The 'disconcerting' aspect is that all the images have a very magenta(purple-ish) look to them.

My next stage is to acquire a tracking system of some type and do a bit more astro imaging at some point in the future.

The point of this(and hence any semblance of relevance) to this thread) is that the manufacturers need to take into account the need for some folks to have all control over the devices.
They seem to have this fearful mentality that if they don't, then some idiot will do something incomprehensibly silly in trying to capture an image, and that somehow the manufacturer's reputation may be shot to pieces .. or something! :confused013


.. more control please .. not more automated witchcraft with no way to control it! :rolleyes:

Sony! .... their incomprehensibly stupid 11 bit raw file decision!
While it may not make a difference to some, other's live by the ability to eke out as much quality when the need arises whether this comes from auto correction, or 11bit raw files.
I personally couldn't bring myself to purchase an A7 of any type simply because if I ever wanted to capture a high dynamic range scene(in one shot) .. this camera limits the ability to squeeze out that final little bit of image out of the raw file.
For me it turns it more so into a P&S camera .. where just capturing the photo is the goal .. no matter how good/bad/ugly it turns out .. more control = better.

Anyhow .. All I think I need is for me to have the option to capture an image(or set of images) with an intended goal.
If that goal is to achieve an image that is based more on an OCD of optimal data(as Thom puts it), then I think it should be my choice to do so .. not their choice to disallow me to do so.
(hence I look for alternatives, in the form of firmware hacks ... or disregard devices as too limited for all my purposes).

[ameerat42]

AK. WHOSE 11-bit raw file?

:eek::eek:GHH!! and SPY:vomit1:UU!!

[arthurking83]

Sony A7's only do 11bit raw files.

Why? :confused013

12bit I can understand(but don't use) .. and what's wrong with 14bits?
One can only assume processing power .. which equals battery usage .. which means shots per charge .. which means ... err I dunno .. maybe EVFs draw too much power or something :p

[swifty]

AK: I understand where you're coming from. I think it comes down to design objectives.
When the m43 system does become broad enough to encompass more specialized lenses then the objective of the lens designer should in theory suit whatever the intended application is. Astrophotography lens that are super fast and coma free perhaps.
We should remember that not all m43 lens undergo such auto correction. It tends to be the more consumer-ish lens or lens where compactness was an obvious objective. Again I'll still state that the idea doesn't sit well with me but in practice its a forgotten issue for me.
I also have a 75mm f1.8 lens that renders so clinically it rivals any DSLR lens I've ever used. No correction required. The only thing I do manually to images from the 75mm is a little CA reduction.

I think we just have to live with some of these hidden parameters imposed by the camera manufacturers. You mentioned the NR issue for one, sometimes manufacturers appear to bake in the NR even in 'off' settings.
ISO is not much of a standard since it seems to differ for every model.
ISO gain compensation for T-stop light losses is another I've read about.

Sometimes it's easier to give in.

[arthurking83]

ISO ratings are totally understandable and everyone should be accepting of the variances.

The ISO standards actually allow for this in digital sensor photography.
The manufacturers have some leeway when rating ISO points for their products.

As long as within the acceptable range of allowance, the variation in actual ISO levels is OK.(ie. close enough)

Some of the problems with trying to specifically specify an ISO rating in a digital camera(that aligns perfectly with a film speed ISO rating) is the issue of software conversion/rendering etc.
At what point do you allow for acceptable noise within the image, and what is an acceptable exposure, are just two of the questions that are open to 'interpretation' more so with digital than with film.
Then we have the issue of raw file conversion software. There will be variances between the way different software demosaic a raw file .. hence different exposures, even tho you followed a strict exposure schedule!

..

Seen some samples and the reviews of that 75/1.8 .. and yeah! ... wow! super quality stuff.
I reckon the price is probably a little on the high side, but the quality of the lens redeems this (very subjective) downside.

note* The high price issue is only when compared to the price of an average 85mm f/1.8 from other manufacturers that is.

[jev]

I don't have enough experience with the camera yet to provide all the nitty gritty details, but every time I see the results from a couple of fellow X-T1 users I'm pretty impressed. Weather permitting I might just give it a go this weekend.

Okay, the weather wasn't too bad this weekend but it wasn't great either. So, instead of going into town, we went to see the National Millitary Museum in Soesterberg which is pretty close by. Here's an example of what the little Fuji is capable of. The image I attach here is taken in a small, pretty dark room. I kept the EXIF information intact but for your convenience: this was taken at 6400ISO, f/4 and 1/6", in JPEG. No postprocessing except for a bit of cut and resize - basically, what you see is straight from the camera.

The image illustrates a couple of things:

Even in pretty dark circumstances, it focusses acurately
Even at these pretty ridiculous exposure settings, there is no significant noise
The EVF is very good, I could not have seen enough using an optical viewfinder only
The image stabilizer is outstanding. I had the camera in my hands as usual and just leaned against a post


115026

[agb]

Okay, the weather wasn't too bad this weekend but it wasn't great either. So, instead of going into town, we went to see the National Millitary Museum in Soesterberg which is pretty close by. Here's an example of what the little Fuji is capable of. The image I attach here is taken in a small, pretty dark room. I kept the EXIF information intact but for your convenience: this was taken at 6400ISO, f/4 and 1/6", in JPEG. No postprocessing except for a bit of cut and resize - basically, what you see is straight from the camera.

The image illustrates a couple of things:

Even in pretty dark circumstances, it focusses acurately
Even at these pretty ridiculous exposure settings, there is no significant noise
The EVF is very good, I could not have seen enough using an optical viewfinder only
The image stabilizer is outstanding. I had the camera in my hands as usual and just leaned against a post



Thanks for posting. Seems a nice sharp image for where and what it was.
A couple of questions. Firstly how do you read the exif data for that image?
Second what lens was used to get that image that had image stabilizing?
Thanks.

[Arg]

Browsing the promotional blurb for the new Olympus E-M5 II, they claim "the world's shortest* shooting time lag", whatever that is, and the little asterisk leads to the disclaimer "*As of February 5, 2015 on interchangeable lens cameras. Based on Olympus testing using CIPA standards, when used with M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO at telephoto end, Single AF Target (single point at the centre), IS off."

Nevertheless, arguable though it be, I think the message is it ain't slow. :D

[MissionMan]

Shooting time lag is the time from when you turn on the camera until you can take the first picture (could be wrong though)

[jev]

Thanks for posting. Seems a nice sharp image for where and what it was.
A couple of questions. Firstly how do you read the exif data for that image?
Second what lens was used to get that image that had image stabilizing?
Thanks.
Install a browser-plugin to read the full exif info (depending on which platform and which browser you use) or download the image and use a standalone exif-reader like Phil Harvey's exiftool (google for it to find its download location).

The exif will also show what lens was used (in this case the standard Fuji kitlens: Fujinon 18-55/2.8-4 R LM OIS), what length was used etc.

[Arg]

I think that is 'startup time'. Lag time generally is time from pressing the shutter to the camera starting to record the picture.

[arthurking83]

Shooting time lag is the time from when you press the shutter release to start the exposure, to when the exposure actually starts.

The ISO standard for this measurement is available in the ISO 15781:2013 document.

As they are now measured in 1/100s of a second the difference between 0.01s and 0.011s is an insignificant measurement.

Start up time is what MM was referring to as: the time from when you first turn the camera on - to ready to shoot conditions in the camera.
(again this is part of the ISO 15781:2013 document).

What's curious about Olympus's measurements is why that lens(14-40/2.8) at the telephoto end(??? :confused013 ???) and again why only single focus point mode.
IS off is understandable to a degree. All the specifics with question marks don't make sense.

Note too tho that the spec does specifically state that this Shooting time lag is dependent on the camera autofocusing and metering to take the shot.

ie. if IS takes 0.1s to activate and allow the camera to make the exposure, then this makes sense(why Olympus says that IS should be off .. etc)
Other obvious assumptions could be made that the 14-40/2.8 lens is their fastest focusing lens.



..... Start up time will be a different kettle of fish tho.

[I @ M]

I think that is 'startup time'. Lag time generally is time from pressing the shutter to the camera starting to record the picture.

Seriously -- " I think " simply does not cut it other than for advertising purposes.

Give us some links to the CIPA standard and then show us some comparison figures.

At the moment we have some "promotional blurb" which really tells everybody nothing.

[Arg]

Seriously -- " I think " simply does not cut it other than for advertising purposes.

Give us some links to the CIPA standard and then show us some comparison figures.

At the moment we have some "promotional blurb" which really tells everybody nothing.

I never said in yesterday's post (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136397-C-mon-let-s-wake-this-forum-up&p=1278840#post1278840) that I have proof it's right. In fact I said the opposite: it's promotional blurb; it uses terminology that could be misinterpreted (and promptly was misinterpreted herein); it's arguable.

Nevertheless, I disagree with you, I think it tells everybody something. It is clear to me that they want to boast about it, so they have made an effort to make this camera very fast to acquire focus and shoot. Which is something claimed earlier in this thread to be a weakness of DSLM cameras -- hence worth a mention today. I was also criticized earlier (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136397-C-mon-let-s-wake-this-forum-up&p=1274053#post1274053)for not reading the disclaimers, and that claims of fastest shooting lag specifically excluded full-frame DSLR cameras from the comparison. Well, this latest claim specifically includes all interchangeable-lens cameras.

I don't care if it is the fastest in the world or under what exact conditions, so I won't be investigating it: like Arthur, I think it only needs to be sufficiently fast that we don't notice any lag. Exactly as I said in yesterday's post, "the message is it ain't slow". And for the purposes of this thread, my message to readers of this thread is that shooting time lag (including AF acquisition time) need not be a reason to stay away from DSLM cameras.

[Arg]

An opinion piece in DPR today (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8416562015/opinion-canon-eos-m3-mirrorless), by the former editor of Amateur Photographer Magazine, Damien Demolder.

Basically he maintains that industry confusion still reigns as to who is attracted to DSLM cameras, and that Canikon, particularly Canon, have blundered. The new Canon M3 and its not being marketed into the USA only serves to indicate that the confusion continues.

[Steve Axford]

From sitting on the outside with no particular axe to grind (I use Canon, but I am not emotionally tied to them), I would say that mirrorless cameras still have a way to go to be a viable alternative for the serious photographer. I would happily use a mirrorless as shutter counts then become irrelevant and, for me, that may be important. Of course, you can always get shutters replaced, so the mirrorless camera would have to be superior in other respects too. I'll wait until they are, but there is a way to go yet. I think it would be very easy for Canon and Nikon to move to them if they wish. After all, video doesn't use a mirror so the technology is familiar to all the major manufacturers.

[davsv1]

From sitting on the outside with no particular axe to grind (I use Canon, but I am not emotionally tied to them), I would say that mirrorless cameras still have a way to go to be a viable alternative for the serious photographer. I would happily use a mirrorless as shutter counts then become irrelevant and, for me, that may be important. Of course, you can always get shutters replaced, so the mirrorless camera would have to be superior in other respects too. I'll wait until they are, but there is a way to go yet. I think it would be very easy for Canon and Nikon to move to them if they wish. After all, video doesn't use a mirror so the technology is familiar to all the major manufacturers.
Hi Steve,
Couple of points.
Define "Serious photographer" ?
Where do you perceive the short comings to be?
Mirrorless still have mechanical shutters with a finite life, 150,000 for the EM1 I believe, that is one of the criterion for being a top range camera as compared to mid or low range.

[Steve Axford]

Define "Serious photographer" - me
Where do you perceive the short comings to be? - resolution, weather proofing, lens options, autofocus.
Mirrorless still have mechanical shutters with a finite life, 150,000 for the EM1 I believe, that is one of the criterion for being a top range camera as compared to mid or low range. - I didn't realise that, so they just lost their one major advantage.

[davsv1]

Define "Serious photographer" - me
Where do you perceive the short comings to be? - resolution, weather proofing, lens options, autofocus.
Mirrorless still have mechanical shutters with a finite life, 150,000 for the EM1 I believe, that is one of the criterion for being a top range camera as compared to mid or low range. - I didn't realise that, so they just lost their one major advantage.
Weather sealing is as good as any dslr, my experience not conjecture, lens line up for m4/3 is as good as dslr esp if your happy to use an adapter http://www.birdsinaction.com https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/ for example ( some sony some m4/3) http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?137286-Available-lenses-for-m4-3. Auto focus works fine if you choose the correct camera, certainly not up to dslr for bif but it is possible with a little practice , I don't deny it is a short coming but not as bad as some people suggest. As for resolution that has been discussed earlier and it has nothing to do with "mirrorless" but is sensor related and limits the choice of brand if you want ff, even then the gap is not as big as it once was for smaller sensored cameras, but I accept it will never be equal. I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone just pointing out reality. Maybe the problem is that a lot of mirrorless users are beginners and don't produce great results whereas most top line dslr users are experienced shooters so the results are better.http://roelh.zenfolio.com http://pen3.de/Stacken_wie_____/stacken_wie_____.html have a look at these sites then tell me the photo's a no good because they not ff ( Some fungi in the last one because I know they interest you ) more fungi http://pen3.de/Pilze/pilze.html

[Steve Axford]

You know what? That doesn't sound very good to me. I'm really not into buying something that seems to need work. If someone wants to give me one, then I'll happily try it out, but if I have to pay for it, then I'll stick to the tried and trusted. Why change for something that, by your own assessment isn't quite as good yet. Things have to be better to get people to move.

[MissionMan]

You know what? That doesn't sound very good to me. I'm really not into buying something that seems to need work. If someone wants to give me one, then I'll happily try it out, but if I have to pay for it, then I'll stick to the tried and trusted. Why change for something that, by your own assessment isn't quite as good yet. Things have to be better to get people to move.

I think this is exactly the problem. It's not that mirrorless is bad, it just doesn't offer a compelling reason to switch, much the same as Canon doesn't offer a compelling reason to switch from Nikon or the other way around. Established photographers have a considerable investment in glass so there needs to be a substantial reason to switch and right now there is none.

This obviously isn't an issue for new photographers which is why we see a greater take on.

[davsv1]

You know what? That doesn't sound very good to me. I'm really not into buying something that seems to need work. If someone wants to give me one, then I'll happily try it out, but if I have to pay for it, then I'll stick to the tried and trusted. Why change for something that, by your own assessment isn't quite as good yet. Things have to be better to get people to move.
"Seems to need to work" :confused013 I must be missing something
Sure Steve stick the tried and tested....nothing ventured nothing lost eh;)
So I guess you looked at the links and weren't even remotely impressed :tog:
And I never said it "wasn't quite good yet", I said it wasn't as good resolution wise as ff and never will be (smaller) sensor wise but it is good enough for plenty of "serious photographers" as shown in the links provided.
Anyway thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.

[Steve Axford]

I don't want to lose anything for no gain. Who would?
I think that mirrors make little sense in the long run, but I don't really care about technology. I just care about the results now.

[davsv1]

I don't want to lose anything for no gain. Who would?
I think that mirrors make little sense in the long run, but I don't really care about technology. I just care about the results now.

I've never lost anything and not gained something, it's called experience, knowledge, wisdom, learning.....it always cost something, time, money, patience, pain even life sometimes!
No right no wrong just opinion, yours and mine
as a friend told me once there are pioneers and settlers in life, both are redundant without each other

[Arg]

as a friend told me once there are pioneers and settlers in life, both are redundant without each other

Nice encapsulation of the two 'teams'. [emoji5]

[swifty]

I don't want to lose anything for no gain. Who would?
I think that mirrors make little sense in the long run, but I don't really care about technology. I just care about the results now.

Whether you gain or loose anything largely depends on what you shoot. But as you've noted, if there are no/little gains for you but lots of losses currently it would make no sense for you whatsoever.
But I think one thing this thread has shown is that there are quite a number of misconceptions about mirrorless cameras as a whole.

Anyways, not trying to sway you one way or another but here's something that may be of interest to you. I understand that you shoot macro, fungi in particular?
If I can make some assumptions that you use a tripod and your subject is largely static, you manual focus and that pixel density is an advantage?
If so, then perhaps the sensor shift high resolution mode of the newly announced E-M5 II might be of interest. ''Might'' - cos its new and I don't know enough about how it works so far.
But you can continue to use your existing macro lenses via adapter. The sensor shift mode uses electronic shutter and shifts the sensor a half pixel 8 times to yield a 64MP RAW file on m43 sensor size. You can work out the pixel density but it would be roughly equivalent to 256MP sensor on FF. Of course it depends on your framing and subject whether the extra pixel density helps you or not.
Note I'm not saying its equivalent to a 256MP FF sensor, I'm just saying it has similar pixel density but only in a sensor area roughly a quarter the size of a FF sensor.

On top of this you get full sampling of all colours at each pixel, not just demosiacing colour info from adjacent pixels.

[Steve Axford]

Sounds great. I'll let someone else try it and report back. Or, maybe I'll let 10,000 people try it and report back. That way it has a chance of working. As Gartner always says, don't be a bleeding edge adopter unless you enjoy problems.

[arthurking83]

This new his res mode that the Olympus has, is just an ephemeral advantage 'in a matter of speaking' that the Olympus currently has over other cameras(in the affordable range).

It sounded like a cool new feature, but seeing the sample images on DPR, I think it's 'ok-ish' in one sense .. but not particularly eye catching in another sense .. but then fantastic in another manner too.

Look at the raw files posted on DPR .. vs the lower resolution D810 .. the D810 wins hands down in terms of actual detail rendering.(nothing outstanding)
Look at the moire comparison tho, the Olympus has zero/none/zip .... awesome stuff! (fantastic)
Jpg images .... 'ok-ish' good detail.

Extrapolate this tech into Canon's 50Mp sensor one day into the near future, and you get a 200Mp raw file.
Who knows what Sony have up their sleeve in terms of both new hi res sensors, and well as camera tech(and hence Nikon to follow too).

Rumours abound that Pentax may have this same technology in their up coming FF DSLR soon too.

About the only really interesting part of this technology is the lack of moire effect with such high resolution(because of the full colour info per pixel.

Of course the application potential is severely limited.

Apart from the inability to do full colour info at each pixel(and hence moire results from this deficiency) to get 64Mp resolution from a full frame sensor is (or should be pretty easy) .. and then you get this resolution capability without conditional usage.

[Steve Axford]

I've never lost anything and not gained something, it's called experience, knowledge, wisdom, learning.....it always cost something, time, money, patience, pain even life sometimes!
No right no wrong just opinion, yours and mine
as a friend told me once there are pioneers and settlers in life, both are redundant without each other
Funny, I've never thought of myself as a settler and I think my friends would laugh at the idea, but perhaps I hold off a bit when it comes to technology. I'm a photographer and what I use has to help me to do that. Working with unproven technology for no good reason doesn't interest me at all. Mind you, I do work with some very unproven technology, but that is because there is nothing else that will do the job.

[swifty]

Tis true, this is not a fundamental mirrorless advantage, merely an advantage a particular camera current has that happens to be mirrorless.
I merely pointed out something that might be compelling for Steve for his subject matter. Not suggesting he should be an early adopter or anything. I tend to be late too although I follow news about leading tech.
It's just providing info on current mirrorless cameras for clarity sake.

But I agree the high res mode is of limited applications but the static macro genre seems to be one of them. For me, it would be of little use.
I'm venturing into format debate territory here but equivalent MP on different sized sensors give different advantages. And pixel density will have advantages on smaller formats.

But I wasn't aware Dpreview had 64MP raw shots already, thought it was just the 40mp Jpegs due to lack of converters. Will have to go back and check the comparison results. But to be clear I'm not comparing this to a full frame sensor. I merely brought it up for the specific application for Steve and his macro shooting.

[Arg]

Before Canon's going to do it, they have to adopt IBIS. We're talking Canon here.... :o

Pentax rumour: a rumour is worth as much as the guarantee it's written on. Let's deal in reality.

P.S. I can only suggest DPR mucked up their raw conversions of the new Olympus, for us to look at, Arthur. Their 'beta version of ACR' doesn't seem to be working properly; it's way, way softer than the jpeg. The jpegs on IR (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA.HTM) tell the opposite story: Oly wins hands down in actual resolution rendering. They write, "The conclusion from our lab testing is that the Olympus E-M5 II's new high resolution shot mode is truly ground-breaking for applications involving shooting non-moving imagery from a tripod. Landscape photographers, architectural photographers and studio product photographers can rejoice!". Don't be too 'happily unimpressed', just yet. :)

[arthurking83]

Before Canon's going to do it, they have to adopt IBIS. We're talking Canon here....

.....

I don't know why they HAVE to adopt IBIS ? :confused013

Why can't they just adopt the sensor shift technology without the need to do image stabilisation?
(is there some patent/legal/technology restriction at play here)

In fact the last thing you would expect a company heavily invested in lens dependent image stabilisation(both Nikon and Canon here) would be to use a sensor shift technology such as this(hi res/moire cancel ability) to do image stabilisation too.
As their IS systems are lens based, they could effectively lower the requirement for doing his res sensor shift modes as the sensor is shifting purely for hi-res/moire canel duties .. and the lens does the IS.
I would imagine that Olympus haven't allowed the use of IBIS and hi res sensor shift mode concurrently :confused013 .. I can image it to be difficult if not impossible to achieve.


As for jpg captures in camera .. not interested!
I know some people are (and hence do) .. but to me a jpg is not a photo.
While many folks may recommend that jpg is all you need, I still highly advise against doing so. (each to their own tho).
The decision to shoot jpg only is up to each individual to regret having done so(if or when that day comes)
The only jpgs I've captured in camera(apart from jpg only P&S type cameras) have been for testing purposes to see what the jpgs can look like.
I have never even shot raw + jpgs either. Jpgs are somethign that can easily be done if and when needed .. otherwise a wasted effort(unless this is the only option obviously).


I've read that the raw conversion in ACR has something to do with a plugin(for ACR).
I fully understand that this will be continually improved over time .. which implies only one thing .. this tech is too dependent on software.
I hope this plugin is an Olympus created software and that it's open for all to take advantage of!

.. what if some photographer's software workflow doesn't follow convention(which most assume this to be some Adobe product) .. and what if this photographer prefers the use of Product X .. which doesn't fully understand Olympus's software dependent raw file system?

eg. Photographer depends on RawTherapee for conversion from raw to raster, then chooses GIMP .... as her preferred operating system is Linux based!

While the results are all that counts, as someone once said, with respect to this new found dependence of software to create/form/interpolate/shape the image .. unless the protocols are fully open(for everyone to use) I can't see this new fangled method being an advantage in any way.

I look forward to the day Nikon implement this type of sensor shift tech to eliminate moire(and or increase resolution where it helps with an image).

[swifty]

It should be noted Hasselblad has already done the sensor shift without IBIS so there likely lots of ways this can be implemented. But Olympus really seem like they got this IBIS thing down pat. Make no mistake, if this turns out to be a great feature, others with follow suit.
But I highly doubt this tech is more so dependent on software any more than other RAW formats. Any time they play around with the way they combine the colour info (x-tran, fovean) there are initial RAW conversion issues.
Anyways, think we're straying off topic again.
Just wanted to give an example of features from mirrorless cameras that might interest Steve.
There's an E-m5 II thread to discuss the merits of sensor shifting to achieve higher res and better colour sampling.

[arthurking83]

......
Anyways, think we're straying off topic again...... .



I think this is a common and recurring theme on AP .. :D

[Arg]

Richard Butler has posted an article on DPR titled "Opinion: The future of DSLR or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the ILC". He says that Mirrorless is closing the gap to DSLR, and DSLR is closing the gap to Mirrorless (yes, there is such a gap). As the gaps close, he says buyers will not differentiate, but just buy whichever they like most.

If this happens (or already is), Mirrorless sales will take off IMHO, because there will no longer be such a claim as "I shoot DSLR because they are best for what I do". As soon as the market sees it this way, 50/50 sales volumes will quickly follow.

[ricktas]

Richard Butler has posted an article on DPR titled "Opinion: The future of DSLR or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the ILC". He says that Mirrorless is closing the gap to DSLR, and DSLR is closing the gap to Mirrorless (yes, there is such a gap). As the gaps close, he says buyers will not differentiate, but just buy whichever they like most.

If this happens (or already is), Mirrorless sales will take off IMHO, because there will no longer be such a claim as "I shoot DSLR because they are best for what I do". As soon as the market sees it this way, 50/50 sales volumes will quickly follow.

Time will tell, and I reckon for those getting into photography yes, but for a lot of people they have a lot of money invested in lenses, etc, that at present cannot be just attached to a mirrorless. So anyone who at present has a decent DSLR kit, it would cost a lot to move over.

IF Nikon bring out a mirrorless full frame that can accept all their current lenses then I am ready to buy a mirrorless. But given the current mirrorless offerings, I am not willing to even consider it. For me, mirrorless has a way to go, before it will something I would consider. And I reckon I am not alone.

[ameerat42]

Richard Butler has posted an article on DPR titled "Opinion: The future of DSLR or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the ILC". He says that Mirrorless is closing the gap to DSLR, and DSLR is closing the gap to Mirrorless (yes, there is such a gap). As the gaps close, he says buyers will not differentiate, but just buy whichever they like most.

If this happens (or already is), Mirrorless sales will take off IMHO, because there will no longer be such a claim as "I shoot DSLR because they are best for what I do". As soon as the market sees it this way, 50/50 sales volumes will quickly follow.

But Arg. What I see needs addressing is that statements are made by somebody that are bland and vacuous. Now mind: this is about "statements", not cameras. I wish I could find the "article" that you referred to, but this morning I was feeling too lazy to plough through this thread looking for it:o. However, on what I have seen cited, here's my take:
1. This Richard's heading is nothing but a begged question. So I ask, does everybody worry about an ILC/DSLR/Whatever?
2. He appeals to some "gap" that is then shown - or thought/opined/hoped/imagined - is "closing". I would hope that he at least illustrates both the gap and how it closes in the full article.
3. Presumably, the last sentence in your post is still this Richard talking, - it's a bit shaky - and so I ask, how valid is that as a statement?... The rest is vapid.

Now just a reminder: this is about the argument, not the respective camera systems.

Well, that's all. Ta for persisting.
Am.

[Arg]

.... I wish I could find the "article" that you referred to, but this morning I was feeling too lazy to plough through this thread looking for it....
1. This Richard's heading is nothing but a begged question.....

Hi Am, I agree that the title is like click bait. Butler is a senior staffer at DPR. The article is there under News, dated about 2 days ago. I tried to link but it's clumsy with tapatalk. Cheers

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk

[ameerat42]

Ta Arg. Will avverlook later.
Am.

[Arg]

...
IF Nikon bring out a mirrorless full frame that can accept all their current lenses then I am ready to buy a mirrorless. ....

Hi Rick, what you described is a hostage situation. Nikon know this and will continue to hold you hostage for as long as possible, based entirely on profits and with no regard to your best shooting experience. Look at the high speed accurate CAF shooting the Nikon 1 can do. Plus all the generic advantages of mirrorless already covered. But not for Nikon's bigger-spending customers. They can wait. Perhaps they are generally super-conservative and enjoy being the last to enjoy new capabilities: that would make them a good match for what the company is doing to them. But IMO it is insulting to not offer loyal customers a choice. You would want to do that for a valued customer. But it's not something you would do in a hostage situation. [emoji41]

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk

[swifty]

The largest companies are usually the most conservative but I suspect there must be an element of Japanese culture that's playing into some of these corporate decisions.
Speaking purely about Nikon, I don't think it's that simple as a deliberate withholding of technology. You have to understand the legacy of the F mount, which unlike Canon survived the AF revolution in film SLRs.
Solving the mount equation will provide a migration path for those that are interested in mirrorless in the F-mount group.
If you read what Rick has been saying, he has no qualms about mirrorless per se but it takes a long time to build up a complete lens lineup offering. And even looking at m43 which currently has the best mirrorless lens line up which has taking years to accumulate, it does have the commonly used primes and zooms but has a long way to go for specialty lenses and perhaps never will produce them due to economic viability issues.

So the lens issue is a big one. Maintaining that 46.5mm flange back distance or solving it with an alternative that lets you access the inventory of F-mount lenses is what I believe to be the biggest challenge. Purely using an adapter yields little advantage over just shooting mirror up if they are able implement some form of hybrid OVF/EVF.

[ricktas]

Hi Rick, what you described is a hostage situation. Nikon know this and will continue to hold you hostage for as long as possible, based entirely on profits and with no regard to your best shooting experience. Look at the high speed accurate CAF shooting the Nikon 1 can do. Plus all the generic advantages of mirrorless already covered. But not for Nikon's bigger-spending customers. They can wait. Perhaps they are generally super-conservative and enjoy being the last to enjoy new capabilities: that would make them a good match for what the company is doing to them. But IMO it is insulting to not offer loyal customers a choice. You would want to do that for a valued customer. But it's not something you would do in a hostage situation. [emoji41]

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk

It is only a hostage situation if I am held against my will. I am not!:D

[Arg]

That's what they say about marriage too! [emoji4]

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk

[MissionMan]

It is only a hostage situation if I am held against my will. I am not!:D

Damn. And I was just about to call in the hostage negotiators. Are you sure it's not Stockholm Syndrome?

[ricktas]

Damn. And I was just about to call in the hostage negotiators. Are you sure it's not Stockholm Syndrome?

Nup. I love my Nikon but I am not under any illusions that I am a hostage to them. As for Stockholm Syndrome..have you seen the Nikon executives., no way am I falling in love with any of them. :confused013

[MattNQ]

I find DPR articles only marginally better than Ken Rockwell most time....and not as entertaining:D

At the risk of encouraging this often tiresome thread further, Thom Hogan has summarized it perhaps the best...

"Whether you buy a mirrorless or DSLR camera really has very little to do with the presence or lack of a mirror, as it turns out ....... It’s really about whether a camera company is providing you with what you want. "

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/why-do-people-really-buy.html

Not sure who is being held hostage. Everybody is free to stay with their current system or leave.
If someone cannot take quality images with ANY of the current systems, be they mirrorless, crop factor, or full frame, then they should go back to crayons.

Many of those who argue to the nth degree about resolution DR, AF, EVF's, mirrorless vs DSLR only post their images to flikr anyway, at a size where you'd often be hard pressed to tell the difference between cameras used.

[ameerat42]

...If someone cannot take quality images with ANY of the current systems, be they mirrorless, crop factor, or full frame, then they should go back to crayons...

Ta Matt, but then there this - in French, but who needs to read?...

BE DAZZLED HERE (http://soocurious.com/fr/16-artistes-talentueux-qui-vont-vous-faire-croire-que-leurs-oeuvres-sont-des-photographies-mais-il-nen-est-rien/)

So maybe they should stick to their cameras:D

[MattNQ]

Ta Matt, but then there this - in French, but who needs to read?...

BE DAZZLED HERE (http://soocurious.com/fr/16-artistes-talentueux-qui-vont-vous-faire-croire-que-leurs-oeuvres-sont-des-photographies-mais-il-nen-est-rien/)

So maybe they should stick to their cameras:D

Wow, they are superb :th3:

[Lance B]

For God's sake, Arg, please stop with your incessant harping about trying to convince DSLR users that ML is the answer and we must all change. Your one man crusade is getting a little tiresome, like a religious fanatic, "repent and see the light, non believer!" (pun not intended). We will change when we want to or when we have to, not because you keep trying to convince us to simply because it works for you. We get it, you love your ML camera but it doesn't mean I have to or that any other DSLR users have to, just please get over it and move on.

There are many aspects to which camera system will eventually be the winner in a segment or market area and much of it has to do with production costs, not what is actually necessarily better for the user. This has been proved in many other scenario's.

[MissionMan]

I'm still a little unclear about why there is this push for people to go down the mirrorless path. At the end of the day, there is no real advantage of mirrorless other than size. Even cost isn't an advantage with the current lenses. The Olympus pro lenses are more expensive than the current third party pro lenses ($1400 vs $1000) with a smaller selection so I can't see a real reason for people to move if size isn't a criteria for them.

Mirrorless doesn't offer better performance and at the end of the day, people would need a substantial reason to change which doesn't include a downgrade or same performace. I.e. even if mirrorless is able to provide the same quality pictures as I currently take, why would I pay more money to go to a system that provides no advantage. To me personally (and I'm sure this is the same for other users), the current crop of EVF viewerfinders offer me no real advantage as I prefer OTF's.

If we compare this to switchers between Nikon and Canon, the reason Canon users were switching was primarily landscape photographers looking for the high MP camera combined with the 14-24 which at the time Canon had no alternative for. Now Canon has an alternative, I doubt many people will be switching. Even if Nikon provides a mirrorless full frame, there would be no compelling reason for me to change my D750 to a mirrorless full frame unless it provided me with a substantial improvement to justify it. If I was planning to replace my camera at the time, I may consider it, but I would carefully consider it based on trade offs.

So I stand by my previous comments. Mirrorless are probably more applicable to new people buying into photography who don't have an investment in a system (yet) but for anyone with an investment, you would be hard pressed to find a big reason to change unless camera size was one of the primary decisions in your selection criteria. In 1, 2 or 5 years time, that compelling reason may exist, but until that happens, I don't see the upper spectrum of DSLR users finding any reason to shift.

[ricktas]

All this..and in the end it is about size. Size of the camera, size of the sensor, size of the lenses.

I like my DSLR, and although the Nikon executives that apparently hold me hostage, do not float my boat, I kinda am in love with Freud!:D

[I @ M]

I kinda am in love with Freud!:D

And doesn't that sum it all up, pick a figure, throw a little spin on it to back up whether mirrorless or "traditional" mirrored cameras are the flavour of the decade, year, day and you can interpret Freud's view as either loving mirrors or seeing them as a distant memory (http://bigthink.com/Picture-This/the-minds-eye-freud-and-photography) ----- :D

[MissionMan]

All this..and in the end it is about size. Size of the camera, size of the sensor, size of the lenses.

I like my DSLR, and although the Nikon executives that apparently hold me hostage, do not float my boat, I kinda am in love with Freud!:D

Wasn't it Freud that was in love with his mum?

I have some concerns about you Ricktas...

[ameerat42]

Gosh, MM! Where did you ever learn about Frued!? Oh, well:(

[MissionMan]

Gosh, MM! Where did you ever learn about Frued!? Oh, well:(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

[ameerat42]

...And it means what about Freud? That's a precis of his theory.

- - - Updated - - -

ANd I'll leave it there for my part.

[MissionMan]

...And it means what about Freud? That's a precis of his theory.

- - - Updated - - -

ANd I'll leave it there for my part.


its been a while since i last had to look at Freud but i remember many articles being written that surmised that he wrote it because of his own tendencies.

[Kym]

Who gives a rats behind?

Go and take photos with what gear you have - end of story! (almost)

PS: ML has no compelling reasons to change and the vast number of pros use DSLR thus the amateur hordes will follow suit

[swifty]

So I stand by my previous comments. Mirrorless are probably more applicable to new people buying into photography who don't have an investment in a system (yet) but for anyone with an investment, you would be hard pressed to find a big reason to change unless camera size was one of the primary decisions in your selection criteria. In 1, 2 or 5 years time, that compelling reason may exist, but until that happens, I don't see the upper spectrum of DSLR users finding any reason to shift.

I think you've summed it up quite well here. And I'll add that the size advantage is complemented by an accompanying drop in sensor size hence why I feel a sweet spot exists somewhere around the m43 sized format particularly when accompanied by the shorter focal length lenses.

But having said that, I keep having the same thoughts that the behemoth medium format cameras (except Leica S) would benefit greatly by removing the mirror. It'll likely make them handle more like current pro DSLRs.

[Arg]

Plenty of' 'upper echelon' DSLR owners are going mirrorless. The idea that it's all about size is misplaced and has been clarified earlier. That's only one valid reason. People who *haven't* made the change aren't really the ones to say why people who *have* made the change did it, are they?

Any decision making text will explain that sunk costs need to be ignored in considering the next spend. The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake. Not having money to spare is of course different and must be taken into account.

[ricktas]

Plenty of' 'upper echelon' DSLR owners are going mirrorless. The idea that it's all about size is misplaced and has been clarified earlier. That's only one valid reason. People who *haven't* made the change aren't really the ones to say why people who *have* made the change did it, are they?

Any decision making text will explain that sunk costs need to be ignored in considering the next spend. The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake. Not having money to spare is of course different and must be taken into account.

Plenty of upper echelon DSLR owners are also NOT going mirrorless. I am not sure what your purpose on this site is, other than to try and create ARGuments? We do not get to see any of your photography and all you seem to do is harp on about how great mirrorless is and why we should all change, and if we do not change, then we are making a mistake, in your opinion. Well lots of others have just as valid opinions and disagree entirely with you. I do not understand your desire to constantly deride those who have not swapped to, or are not intending to swap to mirrorless. You have been told over and over why a lot of us are not changing, but that has not stopped your relentless pursuit of ARGument and stupid statements like "The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake". Again trying to insinuate that those who do not get it (and move to mirrorless) are making some kind of mistake.

Show me an advanced level DSLR photographer who cannot take brilliant photos with their DSLR? And then explain to me how having a DSLR is a mistake.

[swifty]

Arg, there are plenty of photographers shooting with plenty of different types of gear. And there are plenty of people changing brand/types/formats but it really proves very little other than people are free to make up their minds.

A DSLRs shooter who chooses to shoot DSLRs because it is superior for him/her is correct in their statement.
A mirrorless shooter who chooses to shoot with a mirrorless because it is superior for him/her is also correct.
A mixed gear photographer who chooses a range of gear because he/she feels there are advantages to different gear is also correct.

[ameerat42]

This is the long-winded way of clicking on the "Thank for this useful post" button.:D

[bconolly]

Arg, there are plenty of photographers shooting with plenty of different types of gear. And there are plenty of people changing brand/types/formats but it really proves very little other than people are free to make up their minds.

A DSLRs shooter who chooses to shoot DSLRs because it is superior for him/her is correct in their statement.
A mirrorless shooter who chooses to shoot with a mirrorless because it is superior for him/her is also correct.
A mixed gear photographer who chooses a range of gear because he/she feels there are advantages to different gear is also correct.

This is the crux of it isn't it? That freedom of choice and such a wide variety of options is a good thing and we should all be dancing a happy dance because we have that choice.

One thing I did want to comment on though is that switching isn't just about size (for me at least). It's also about features. So things I wanted that I couldn't afford in a dslr that mirrorless provided sub 2k with a "pro" level 24-70mm f2.8 equivalent lens are:
- toughness which consists of weather sealing, drop resistance and operating temperature
- excellent wireless integration and supporting iPhone app
- quiet normal shutter operation
- EVF
- articulating touch screen

I could get some of those but not all in a crop sensor camera. Then if you add in size / weight it was a no brainer move for me. But that's just me and me alone.

Looking at some of the amazing shots that Lance, Athol and Rick produce it's pretty clear that their dslr's aren't holding them back in anyway :-)

Brenden


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

As for quoting DPReview as the basis for any discussion, it has to be remember that DPRreview is owned by Amazon and what do Amazon do? Sell stuff! DPRreview is just another way for Amazon to get people looking at product and buying it. Yes DPReview does have some good articles etc, but you always have to remember it is now an advertising site, since Amazon purchased it. It is all about making sure the site is profitable and one way to do that is push product, promoting it as being 'great, new, better, easier'.

There is a world of difference between a good research article and an article written with marketing in mind! And some people get suckered into that.

[bconolly]

I think this article from Thom Hogan is a reasonable summary:

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/why-do-people-really-buy.html

[Arg]

Are we now going to get a lecture on why Thom Hogan writes articles? And what a 'sucker' one would be to believe him? I wonder.

[Lance B]

Are we now going to get a lecture on why Thom Hogan writes articles? And what a 'sucker' one would be to believe him? I wonder.

I think you're mixing up a person's opinion with fact. Something that seems to be happening quite a lot in this thread.

[MissionMan]

Nope. I think it just happens with Arg at the moment. Everyone else seems to be able to distinguish between the two.

Rick. Can we close this thread. I find it hard to believe that Arg is doing anything other than trolling here. I've given him the benefit of the doubt but now I can come to no conclusion other than him being a troll or a complete idiot and I'm guessing it's the former.

[Arg]

Richard Butler has posted an article on DPR titled "Opinion: The future of DSLR or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the ILC". He says that Mirrorless is closing the gap to DSLR, and DSLR is closing the gap to Mirrorless (yes, there is such a gap). As the gaps close, he says buyers will not differentiate, but just buy whichever they like most.

If this happens (or already is), Mirrorless sales will take off IMHO, because there will no longer be such a claim as "I shoot DSLR because they are best for what I do". As soon as the market sees it this way, 50/50 sales volumes will quickly follow.


For God's sake, Arg, please stop with your incessant harping about trying to convince DSLR users that ML is the answer and we must all change. Your one man crusade is getting a little tiresome, like a religious fanatic, "repent and see the light, non believer!" (pun not intended). We will change when we want to or when we have to, not because you keep trying to convince us to simply because it works for you. We get it, you love your ML camera but it doesn't mean I have to or that any other DSLR users have to, just please get over it and move on.

If this isn't ACTUAL BULLYING -- personal, aggressive, and unwarranted -- then I don't know what would be.


Plenty of' 'upper echelon' DSLR owners are going mirrorless. The idea that it's all about size is misplaced and has been clarified earlier. That's only one valid reason. People who *haven't* made the change aren't really the ones to say why people who *have* made the change did it, are they?

Any decision making text will explain that sunk costs need to be ignored in considering the next spend. The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake. Not having money to spare is of course different and must be taken into account.


Plenty of upper echelon DSLR owners are also NOT going mirrorless. I am not sure what your purpose on this site is, other than to try and create ARGuments? We do not get to see any of your photography and all you seem to do is harp on about how great mirrorless is and why we should all change, and if we do not change, then we are making a mistake, in your opinion. Well lots of others have just as valid opinions and disagree entirely with you. I do not understand your desire to constantly deride those who have not swapped to, or are not intending to swap to mirrorless. You have been told over and over why a lot of us are not changing, but that has not stopped your relentless pursuit of ARGument and stupid statements like "The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake". Again trying to insinuate that those who do not get it (and move to mirrorless) are making some kind of mistake.

Show me an advanced level DSLR photographer who cannot take brilliant photos with their DSLR? And then explain to me how having a DSLR is a mistake.

Rick, you completely misunderstood my post. I never said that "DSLR owners who 'get' that mirrorless is better, won't make the mistake of buying DSLR next time". ????!!!!??!?! I said that DSLR owners who 'get' that sunk costs need to be ignored in making the next spending decision, won't make the mistake of putting too much importance on the value of their prior investment (lenses and kit) as a deterrent against buying something different next time.

Then you accused me of making all kinds of insinuations. And launched into an aggressive and personal attack on me, my character, and my motives. All completely wrong because you completely mis-read my post. I respectfully request an apology.

- - - Updated - - -


MissionMan
Nope. I think it just happens with Arg at the moment. Everyone else seems to be able to distinguish between the two.

Rick. Can we close this thread. I find it hard to believe that Arg is doing anything other than trolling here. I've given him the benefit of the doubt but now I can come to no conclusion other than him being a troll or a complete idiot and I'm guessing it's the former.

More bullying.

May I please redirect visitors to this thread to the original post, post #1. If you don't own a mirrorless system, then why are you here, mounting big long lecturing arguments against mirrorless cameras? That's almost the perfect definition of trolling, yes? Yet I'm the troll, I'm argumentative? That's simply ironic.

Pro-mirrorless does not imply anti-DSLR. Please get over it and stop thinking that way. This is a pro-mirrorless thread in the Mirrorless forum, and that is all it is. It doesn't mean, signify, or imply anything about negative attitudes towards DSLR cameras.

If I can't mention a simple article on DPR about how good mirrorless cameras are getting, post #287, without being blasted from all sides and called a troll and requests for my thread to be closed, then people need to be looking at themselves, not at me, and asking themselves why are they so over-reactive and aggressive. And why are they doing it in the Mirrorless forum.

I request that this thread stays open.

I request that people who are primarily DSLR users respect the topic as per the first post, and either withdraw (hence creating a much less aggressive and bullying environment for the few mirrorless users who might want to communally discuss their gear with others who also own similar gear, to stick their head up without getting it knocked off), or participate as someone who has a genuine interest in moving primarily to mirrorless and therefore has some well-intentioned questions, rather than argumentative lectures, to put forward.

I request that people be much more courteous in this thread.

[Kym]

Thread closed for moderation

[ricktas]

I have re-opened the thread and we have removed a member from the site

[Boo53]

I guess I must have posted in this thread early on as it keeps coming up in my "threads you've posted" in list.

I've now caught up with the tail end and I'm wondering how many times it can go around in a circle before it disappears up its own fundamental orrifice :D

Anyway. to add another 2 cents worth. I have both a sony A7r & A7II and love them. The size is good because I like to go bushwalking and the lighter weight is great. Would I be bothered whether they have a mirror or not except for that - nope.

I like the image quality and I'm very happy with the quality of lenses that are available from zeiss in particular, and I can use my A mount G lens with little hassle, and have used a friend Canon L lens as well with good results.

If I was not already a sony shooter would I have changed, well perhaps not, I'm not generally an early adopter, but the fact that I could keep my existing lens and change would be tempting.

It is something for newer shooters to consider, but for those with existing setups, not as compelling.

[MissionMan]

I've changed my mind. I'm going with the mirrorless are better. I can then use it as a feeble means to boost my own ego and convince myself that it is purely my phenomenal skill levels that are allowing me to compete with the mirrorless users in the Ausphoto comps because I am at a distinct disadvantage and I'd like to respectfully respect that the likes of bcys1961 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/member.php?21510-bcys1961) have points deducted due to having an unfair advantage. (Sorry bcys1961, no offence intended but your photos are pretty good and it must be that damn camera)

[arthurking83]

.....

But having said that, I keep having the same thoughts that the behemoth medium format cameras (except Leica S) would benefit greatly by removing the mirror. It'll likely make them handle more like current pro DSLRs.

It really wouldn't make all that much difference(having a mirror or not).

Reason is very simple: backward compatibility, and prospective future costs of any new lenses.

All the 'known' brands of MF systems rely heavily on one inescapable point .. that there are a multitude of lenses available for each respective system.
The advantage of a mirrorless camera is in that removing the mirror it makes the system less unwieldy.
The systems have already been engineered in a specific manner(ie. backfocus distances) .. so for those manufacturers to 'start fresh' (in a manner of speaking) .. means that to maintain this backward compatibility they still need to design the camera in a consistent manner.
People talk about adapters, but it should be remembered that for each interface(especially mechanical) there are tolerance issues. Quality can only suffer the more interfaces you add.

Phase one only recently announced a brand new model XF.
In an interview with the main designer, Lau Norgaard, Kevin Raber(LL) asks for the interest in satisfying reader curiosity .. why an OVF and not an EVF.
Lau's response was that they thought that the optical system is still better overall .. obviously for that form of system .. to cater to the demands of their intended customers.
While latency and dynamic range were sited as the two major reasons for this design choice, Lau obviously still thinks that OVFs are still an 'overall' better quality experience than any current EVF tech, despite all the advantages they could provide.

This is all via a video interview in LL on this new Phase One XF camera .. approx half way through the 30odd minutes of the video.

The comments made earlier on the future of the sales levels of mirrorless and mirrored cameras is hilarious!(to say the least, and in reality ... fanciful)
While mirrorless cameras have a lot going for them compared to DSLR, and the opposite is true for DSLR .. one thing that is blatantly obvious in the market(or market share) .. that limits the 'growth' of mirrorless cameras, is so obvious that not many folks seem to bother about it.

The manufacturers involved!!
Until Canon and Nikon redesign their leading models as mirrorless types, the market share for each respective type is about as fixed as it's ever going to be going into the future.
Until those two redesign their best selling models as mirrorless types, mirrorless cameras sales market share will not suddenly explode into a 50/50 split between the two types.
The last months CIPA figures are clear indications to this .. more probable .. future scenario.

All dedicated camera sales are still slowing or have stagnated, and the major issue for all camera manufacturers is not what design type they offer. The same problem that has hit all camera sales .. smartphone photography.
As smartphone cameras/software improves with each new iteration, it just drives one more nail into the dedicated camera sales coffin.

Mirrorless or mirrored, only the camera makers with enough current volume will survive the impending sales doom.

My way of seeing the future of the camera market is simple.
The vast majority of people buying cameras are like us(here in these forums, dedicated to photography, and all photography related discussions).
They are just everyday folks, that simply want/need a higher quality camera for when the need arises, that comes out when a special occasion is called for it to surface.
For almost all other camera related usage, the most compact and convenient device will do .. ie. the smartphone.
Taking such a user scenario into consideration and extrapolating(hypothesising) the most probable likely future sales situation .. mirrorless cameras are more likely to be hardest hit rather than DSLRs.

Most people already know that DSLRs are big and heavy :p dinousaurs, so their size and weight are expected to be so, and allowances are made for this.
But, if mirrorless cameras major advantage is in providing a smaller form factor .. and smartphone cameras can provide damn good image quality .. what actual advantage is the smaller mirrorless camera actually providing!!
Remember this scenario is not relevant to yourselves or myself .. we know this is not how cameras provide a certain level of quality.
But average Joe and Jane who know nothing of the inner qualities of camera gear don't know this. They see big camera where you look into it and know that it's going to produce high quality!

This fallacious notion that folks (pro or not) are wholesale switching to mirrorless from reflex is quite simply stupid!
The camera market is a lot more complex than that.
CIPA figures just released show that worldwide, DSLRs sales increased more than mirrorless did in the last reported period!!
[sarcasm-on]One of the major arguments that ML camera disciples always commented as a 'reason' for all of us to gravitate to ML cameras was that the tide was turnign towards an all mirrorless camera future, and that sales graphs proved this fact.[/sarcasm-off]

:rolleyes:
As if this is some point of proof that this is why mirrorless is the future of camera design ... or something idiotic like that.
On the whole, DSLR shipments increased more so compared to ML cameras for the month of April '15.

Look at Japan, which kind of proves a comment I've made a while back, on the topic or market maturity.
The problem with market maturity is that it's a bit of an unknown, other that a market hasn't reached maturity until sales figures vary over time. It may peak and trough at various times depending on some localised factors, such as model releases, sales pitches .. or other events(usually of a major type .. eg. Olympics).
Japan contracted for the month of April(compared to March) .. DSLR sales down to 96% levels .. mirrorless sales down to 89% of the March figures!
And these mirrorless crazies want us to believe that the market is where a truth is to be believed!! :confused:

One last point I'd like to specifically make on the sheer stupidity of these types comments of proof made by these people.
In the CIPA figures they list areas broken down into certain regions. Americas, Japan, Asia(:confused:), Europe, etc. One area they list is simply called Other.
Where this place/region is, is unknown to me(and not specifically explained in CIPA literature).
But what is interesting are the sales(actually shipment) figures for this area. We can only assume that shipments translate into sales, but this is impossible without insider info on this topic.
What is interesting are the figures provided by CIPA.

For April, DSLR camera shipments were 270% of March's figures, whereas ML shipments were only 60% of March figures!
DSLRs .. the almost extinct dinosaur! :p .. seems to have defied the odds in what is obviously a still yet to fully mature region of the world(very low sales figures) .. yet the new black(yep sarcasm again!) .. mirrorless camera is somehow the saviour of the world's photographers.

I like most of what Thom says. I think his repeated and incessant point about user interfaces on cameras is perfectly spot on. I'd love a more user friendly camera. If it had to be a ML .. it also needs a 2x(at least) better EVF(I can't live with the current gen tech).
But I think he's completely wrong in terms of more pixels.
I think he(along with most commentators) is right in that we don't actually need more of them .. although I've now been reconverted to the advantage of having more(just as many Canon owners will also be once they get their hands on 5Ds/r bodies!!
But he also thinks camera companies are going about achieving higher sales the wrong way .. through more pixels.
But ordinary people who want more .. need more pixels. Otherwise why would they buy them. :confused013

This is the new more law.

People will still purchase more camera as long as it gives them more(something else). They'll put up with a large heavy box(or a smaller lighter contraption) .. as long as it has more.
Why would they buy a 16Mp small lightweight hike with it anywhere device .. when their 20Mp smartphone is even smaller lighter more convenient and has more.
But, give them a 5Ds .. yeah it weighs a ton, it doesn't connect to the wifi .. let alone the net, and it not only weighs a ton, but it's lenses also weight a ton and half each too!
yet it has more, but not only more .. much much more .. more than 2x as much more than the weird attempt at a small lightweight device that has even less than their smartphone.
They don't care, nor understand that these cameras autofocus down to -3Ev now. To them this is gibberish elite haxor speak .. and as long as it uploads their favourite shot to FaceTube quickly .. they can upload a 25Mb jpg at 9000x6000 resolution and the now have more, and that's all that's important to them.

In the interview on LL, Lau makes an interesting point.
Some time back, supposed experts claimed the extinction of the MF system .. yet here are Phase One now with customer demand for a newer better system .. which they obliged with.

anyhow .. sorry for the long post.
Hopefully now this thread will die.

[swifty]

Don't worry AK. My comments regarding MF mirrorless is purely a mathematical one where you gain the most in body thickness reduction percentage-wise since medium formats have the largest mirror.
I'm aware of the practicality of actually doing so in the existing market, much like the issue of legacy F-mount lenses for Nikon.
But from a handling perspective, from my experience with medium format reflex cameras is that eye-level shooting start to become unwieldy, granted I'm a small guy (I can still handle integrated-grip pro DSLRs quite well though). Although waist level shooting they handle quite well though. Though it's out of my price range, I'm really glad the Phase One XF reintroduced the waist level VF to digital MF.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and in terms of VF I'm still a bit of a die hard OVF guy. I think I've repeated myself many times.
But given space requirements aren't so stringent on a largish camera and there would be space for a stronger power supply, I'd thought it'd be easier to make good, large EVFs that rival current state of the art smartphone screens. Or just re-use the best of whatever's available off the shelf since there would be so much development in the area from the smartphone industry anyways. It'd probably still need to be shrunk a little though.
As MF is not really used all that much in the sports/wildlife genre (less frame rate requirements), if the EVFs get as good as the best small digital display medium then even I'd say it'll be good enough.

[arthurking83]

In a studio environment where lighting is almost always controlled, an EVF wouldn't be so much of a burden(in an MF camera) .. but many really high end pros use MF cameras for all manner of shooting scenarios.
eg. outdoor portraits, landscapes or whatever. Outdoors, while you can control lighting in terms of exposure, you can't control the usual massive dynamic range experienced.
You either see shadow OR highlight details .. on an electronic screen .. very rarely both at the same time in real time.
And then like the man said .. the question of latency.
The harder the push to reduce latency and dynamic range, the more processing that the evf requires(to display all this data in real time) .. the more power this processing requires .. the lower the battery life .. etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong either .. we're probably very similar, of not the same, in terms of our philosophies with respect to EVF vs OVF .. and I've always been a big fan of EVFs, in terms of future potential.
I'm not all that big a fan of some of the features that are claimed to be an advantage(eg. the focus peaking indicators) of even tho on paper they appear to be of value.
I wasn't completely impressed with the focus peaking of the Sony A7 when I had a try. (with the 55/1.8 mounted)
It was commented on in a DPR article too when they tried it. It wasn't as spot on when the DOF was critically narrow.
Obviously this may improve as AF sensor technology improves too, but I have no idea of how it actually works.
Maybe the new A7II is better.

While there are no perfect focus assist aides in current optical viewfinders either .. from what I've seen(experienced) it's pretty much of a muchness.
It's sad that the Katzeye company were forced to close shop, as their screens are an almost perfect blend of usability and accuracy.

Totally agree with your comments re the use of some of the technology the small displays we now see(ie. smartphones/tablets/etc).
My biggest gripe with the EVFs I've experienced is that I can't get past the magnified pixel experience.
That is, while these EVF displays are super massively dense in pixels per inch terms, looking at them via a magnified ocular system at close range produces this annoying(to me) magnified pixel feeling .. plus the latency and dynamic range issues.

[swifty]

Just a heads up that the highest specced EVF now is probably the Leica Q. It'd be interesting to benchmark that unit against current peers.

[I @ M]

Well after so many pages of to and fro I thought I would post an image that simply couldn't have been done mirrorless.



I don't care what anyone says, it simply wouldn't have been possible without a mirror involved.





Did any of you really expect me to be serious? :rolleyes:



Go out and takes some photos and stop staring at computer screens. :)




https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9582534/Jo%20%26%20Lu_20150526_145024s.JPG

[swifty]

Go out and takes some photos and stop staring at computer screens. :)



Sorry, I can't. My 5 month old keeps me home bound. So you're gonna have to put up with more of my ramblings unfortunately. :P

[MissionMan]

You do realise the reason we talk like this is because we're at work when we can't take photos :D

I would be interested to see where this goes long term. Progression of technology is mind blowing when you consider it. Looking back 7 years or so before the iPhone was released, if people told you the biggest phone manufacturers in the world would be Samsung and Apple, most would have laughed because nokia and blackberry ruled the roost. Its a good indication of how far things can come in 5-7 years.

It wouldn't surprise me if something like a variation of OVF with HUD is the future but a lot more advanced than the current versions in DSLR's which just put a focus point. If you had to start including see through high resolution displays (which are already available but unlikely to be compact enough), you could easily find yourself in a position where you have the best of both worlds, or even the choice of EVF and OVF depending on your preference. It may even be some form of one way mirror which allows you still see through the viewfinder but have have the sensor still receiving the picture so it can use a combination of focus mechanisms. I'm guess at this stage, it may already be available in some form.

Of course, it could also go the way of EVF which is so advanced that you can't actually tell you are looking at an EVF.

Either way, the progression of mirrorless and mirrored cameras is good for us because us as consumers benefit from the improvements in technology.

[arthurking83]

...... if people told you the biggest phone manufacturers in the world would be Samsung and Apple,

.... Its a good indication of how far things can come in 5-7 years.......


and further to that, who'd have thought that these two companies would come to dominate the world of photography!

back in an age when Fuji, Kodak, Canon and Nikon were the dominant forces in world photography.

[I @ M]

and further to that, who'd have thought that these two companies would come to dominate the world of photography

I reckon that should read phoneography, it bears the same resemblance to photography as a tinny music track on spotify does to a good quality cd ( let's not mention vinyl here ) does to music. :D

[MissionMan]

I reckon that should read phoneography, it bears the same resemblance to photography as a tinny music track on spotify does to a good quality cd ( let's not mention vinyl here ) does to music. :D

I actually think the opposite. I think if anything it has exploded the world of photography and I think it introduces a younger generation to photography and the merits of it. Yes, there are some horrible pictures, namely the selfie generation, but it's not all bad. I think some of the filters actually allow people to explore photography at a light level and potential engage their interest.

[ameerat42]

You might have a point, MM. My nephew thinks his iPhone pics are horrible in IQ. At least he can recognise that he would like a "better" camera.
An at least he is now trying to improve on other areas of photography with it. (Hmm! I wonder if it was a hint to me about a camera???)

[I @ M]

I actually think the opposite. I think if anything it has exploded the world of photography and I think it introduces a younger generation to photography and the merits of it.

To a certain point I agree, I would rather look at it as exploding the world of instant gratification ( + sharing ) image acquisition, in much the same way as when digital cameras hit the market.
In the overall picture ( pardon the pun ) the number of people that start truly exploring photography from having their interest piqued by their phones would be a minute percentage of phone owners in general and phone camera users in particular. Once again overall, the number of people who went on to truly explore photography after buying a new fangled digital compact camera were probably a minute percentage of the actual sales numbers over the years as well.
But yes, if history repeats as it did by getting more people into photography with the dawning of the digital camera age then there will be more come on board as you suggest by the use of their phones. Any number of new (serious) participants in the sport is a good thing and whilst there are some very good phone images out there they are still drowned under the tide of effluent that comprises the vast majority of phone pics.

[arthurking83]

Doesn't matter which way you look at it .. or label it.

Photography is photography, and while some don't like certain results, nor do they care for these particular workflows .. (which I include myself in this group) .. the end result is impossible to ignore.

Apple/Samsung dominate the world of digital image capture.

Whether you agree it's photography or not .. no one in their right mind would have predicted a few years ago that one of those manufacturers on their own(let alone the two of them!) would have the products that produce 5x as many digital images around the globe.... as Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta/Sony, Fuji, Kodak, etc ... all combined, now do.

I suppose that one day into the future, things may change, yet again.

We may see a total demise of a particular brand, or device/format type to be replaced by another(or one currently gathering momentum).
We may see the traditional 'camera' heavyweights produce new devices that will turn the camera/smartphone market on it's head in a few years.