Is mirrorless "better" than DSLRs these days?
Apr 27, 2015 10:49:38 #
Apr 27, 2015 10:50:04 #
dynaquest1 wrote:
Perhaps Nikon should work harder at making a full frame DSLR that maintains the mirror box and f-mount.....but that is much smaller and lightweight. Would be nice to have a D900 (?) the size of the D3300.
Look at the Nikon Df.
Apr 27, 2015 10:55:20 #
ssymeono wrote:
I wonder why no one has commented on the Nikon 1 system!
burkphoto wrote:
Actually, there is one further smaller step - the Pentax "Q" family now has a 1/1.7" sensor, which is larger than the sensor on a bridge camera only.Because it uses a 1" style sensor, it is at the very lowest end of the mirror-less interchangeable lens camera marketplace.
It does a pretty good job at what it was designed to do, especially in bright light, at the lowest ISOs, but there are much better overall choices for the same money.
It does a pretty good job at what it was designed to do, especially in bright light, at the lowest ISOs, but there are much better overall choices for the same money.
For years I've had two inexpensive cameras to cover a galaxy of photographic wants; most recent I was using a Canon Rebel and a Canon Elph, and the poorly-covered area was B&B (Birds & Butterflies), important to me because my wife is a bird-watcher.
Inspired by the pictures shown here by users of the Canon SX-50, I got the Q-7, because with the available prime lens it could replace my Elph, and with an adapter I could use a long lens from some other camera to take B&B pictures. Using my standards, this experiment has been a success. I have taken the best B&B pictures I've ever taken, and the pictures with the prime lens are much better than I got with the Elph. Of course, the sensor still has its limitations, and the lenses I've used with adapters don't have sufficient dispersion to give me needle-sharp pictures, but for an under $500 setup, it's not bad.
addition: and, unlike the Elph, it has a hot-shoe, so I can carry something approximating a real flash in my other pocket if I foresee the need for that.
Apr 27, 2015 10:57:24 #
RobertW
Loc: Breezy Point, New York
I used Nikon kit all my photographic life + Leica Rangefinders and when needed photography "for the record", a Hasselblad.
At some point I couldn't trundle the big heavy kit around and no longer had a need to be shooting "for the record". Gave big kit to Granddaughter, who uses all admirably. Went to Olympus EP-3 first, then to OMD EM5, then to EM-1, added Leica D-Lux 6 for walkaround, ALWAYS have my trusty old Minox IIIS in my pocket mirrorless lenses are OUTSTANDING!;
MZuiko 12mmf2 anf Leica 25mmf1.4 amazing and I can travel around with my mirrorless kit quite easily---defy anyone except those going to poster sizes to criticize the quality of the product!----Mirrorless is here to stay!
olympus
pen EP3
At some point I couldn't trundle the big heavy kit around and no longer had a need to be shooting "for the record". Gave big kit to Granddaughter, who uses all admirably. Went to Olympus EP-3 first, then to OMD EM5, then to EM-1, added Leica D-Lux 6 for walkaround, ALWAYS have my trusty old Minox IIIS in my pocket mirrorless lenses are OUTSTANDING!;
MZuiko 12mmf2 anf Leica 25mmf1.4 amazing and I can travel around with my mirrorless kit quite easily---defy anyone except those going to poster sizes to criticize the quality of the product!----Mirrorless is here to stay!
olympus
pen EP3
Apr 27, 2015 10:58:28 #
RobertW
Loc: Breezy Point, New York
I used Nikon kit all my photographic life + Leica Rangefinders and when needed photography "for the record", a Hasselblad.
At some point I couldn't trundle the big heavy kit around and no longer had a need to be shooting "for the record". Gave big kit to Granddaughter, who uses all admirably. Went to Olympus EP-3 first, then to OMD EM5, then to EM-1, added Leica D-Lux 6 for walkaround, ALWAYS have my trusty old Minox IIIS in my pocket mirrorless lenses are OUTSTANDING!;
MZuiko 12mmf2 anf Leica 25mmf1.4 amazing and I can travel around with my mirrorless kit quite easily---defy anyone except those going to poster sizes to criticize the quality of the product!----Mirrorless is here to stay!
olympus
pen EP3
At some point I couldn't trundle the big heavy kit around and no longer had a need to be shooting "for the record". Gave big kit to Granddaughter, who uses all admirably. Went to Olympus EP-3 first, then to OMD EM5, then to EM-1, added Leica D-Lux 6 for walkaround, ALWAYS have my trusty old Minox IIIS in my pocket mirrorless lenses are OUTSTANDING!;
MZuiko 12mmf2 anf Leica 25mmf1.4 amazing and I can travel around with my mirrorless kit quite easily---defy anyone except those going to poster sizes to criticize the quality of the product!----Mirrorless is here to stay!
olympus
pen EP3
Apr 27, 2015 11:05:08 #
Hi magicman. You say that the external flashes work on the sony 6000? I cannot get my nikon 800 to work at all. Even the flash that I got for the sony (which I bought with a kit from amazon) made especially for the sony, does not work. I have the silver one so I don't have to scratch the paint off of the hotshoe. That trick was recommended on a utube video. Maybe you have another suggestion.
Apr 27, 2015 11:15:05 #
No offense, but do you mean by slow reaction time. The SONY NEX A6000 is super fast at 11 fps. I don't know what the camera you are comparing it to or how much it costs can do but that seems faster than any $700.00 camera has the right to be.
Apr 27, 2015 11:25:05 #
It's certainly better in terms of portability - I have two Sony's, the 5N and the A6000, and carry them and four lenses in a tiny pack. It makes taking my cameras on trips much less of a hassle! There are, of course, fewer gadgets available than for large, heavy Canons and Nikons, but life is a series of compromises!
Quality of the results is outstanding.
Quality of the results is outstanding.
Apr 27, 2015 11:32:19 #
Mac wrote:
Thanks again for the insight and info. And yes I love my Df.
When does your new 80-400 arrive at your door?
Apr 27, 2015 11:48:14 #
Boentgru
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Mirrorless, versus DSLR, have the advantage of being smaller and lighter, but also:
1. less complicated,
2. don't lose view(finder) during mirror flip,
3. can use shorter lens-to-focal plane distance (no mirror box)*,
4. maintains an uninterrupted sensor view.
5. and can cost less.
The above assumes a EVF arrangement.
* NB - this also means that DSLR lenses can be adapted to work on mirrorless bodies, but not the reverse.
1. less complicated,
2. don't lose view(finder) during mirror flip,
3. can use shorter lens-to-focal plane distance (no mirror box)*,
4. maintains an uninterrupted sensor view.
5. and can cost less.
The above assumes a EVF arrangement.
* NB - this also means that DSLR lenses can be adapted to work on mirrorless bodies, but not the reverse.
Apr 27, 2015 11:50:16 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
BobT wrote:
I'm especially comparing them to entry level DSLRs. I'm reading statements like this of late. Some, like the recent NEX line state the Nex's have noticeably better IQ than DSLRs. So has the mirrorless surpassed it's main original benefit of just being smaller and lighter? Will pros or semi-pros be looking at these "smaller" cameras as their "main" cameras? All this has me thinking about replacing my DSLR gear with mirrorless.
As the owner of a Sony a6000, I have to say yes, to the smaller lighter and in most some cases, surpassing DSLR capability (in general). I think it's a fair statement to say they have exceeded entry level, at least equaled mid-level, and they are coming very close to matching top level DSLR's, mostly due to the technology of the Sony sensor.
There are several you tube segments of pros abandoning their Nikons and Canons (I'm not there yet) in favor of MILC's for sports and weddings. Although there are a few outstanding choices of lenses, I am not thrilled with the Sony line-up to date, but they are adding.
Just started to hook-up some Canon lenses using MF and focus peaking. Having fun experimenting. So far I am liking what I see.
Apr 27, 2015 11:50:26 #
Boentgru wrote:
Mirrorless, versus DSLR, have the advantage of being smaller and lighter, but also:
1. less complicated,
2. don't lose view(finder) during mirror flip,
3. can use shorter lens-to-focal plane distance (no mirror box)*,
4. maintains an uninterrupted sensor view.
5. and can cost less.
The above assumes a EVF arrangement.
* NB - this also means that DSLR lenses can be adapted to work on mirrorless bodies, but not the reverse.
1. less complicated,
2. don't lose view(finder) during mirror flip,
3. can use shorter lens-to-focal plane distance (no mirror box)*,
4. maintains an uninterrupted sensor view.
5. and can cost less.
The above assumes a EVF arrangement.
* NB - this also means that DSLR lenses can be adapted to work on mirrorless bodies, but not the reverse.
Also viewfinder lag, slower focus.
Apr 27, 2015 11:55:56 #
BobT wrote:
I'm especially comparing them to entry level DSLRs. I'm reading statements like this of late. Some, like the recent NEX line state the Nex's have noticeably better IQ than DSLRs. So has the mirrorless surpassed it's main original benefit of just being smaller and lighter? Will pros or semi-pros be looking at these "smaller" cameras as their "main" cameras? All this has me thinking about replacing my DSLR gear with mirrorless.
I had an NEX-7 and can vouch for it as an excellent camera with great programming. I got it for the light weight compared to my full frame D800. It worked for that purpose. It compared very favorably with Nikon entry level DSLRs.
But I recently dumped it because switching back and forth between the Sony and Nikon programming was problematic for me (even though the Sony programming is, IMHO, better). The Nikon has a far superior choice of lenses and I had a much better inventory.
So I replaced the NEX-7 with a D5300 DSLR. It, combined with my DSLR lenses, is significantly heavier than the Sony but since it uses (almost) all my Nikon lenses and has very similar programming I find it much better to use. I wish Nikon would make it in a mirrorless version.
I think eventually there will only be mirrorless cameras.
Apr 27, 2015 11:56:12 #
Apr 27, 2015 11:58:40 #
Boentgru wrote:
Mirrorless, versus DSLR, have the advantage of being smaller and lighter, but also:
1. less complicated,
2. don't lose view(finder) during mirror flip,
3. can use shorter lens-to-focal plane distance (no mirror box)*,
4. maintains an uninterrupted sensor view.
5. and can cost less.
The above assumes a EVF arrangement.
* NB - this also means that DSLR lenses can be adapted to work on mirrorless bodies, but not the reverse.
1. less complicated,
2. don't lose view(finder) during mirror flip,
3. can use shorter lens-to-focal plane distance (no mirror box)*,
4. maintains an uninterrupted sensor view.
5. and can cost less.
The above assumes a EVF arrangement.
* NB - this also means that DSLR lenses can be adapted to work on mirrorless bodies, but not the reverse.
Another big advantage, at least on the Sony NEX-7, is that the EVF is much more flexible than a viewfinder and shows you the image as it will be recorded...i.e. "what you see is what you get"...in most cases. Very helpful in low light.
I wouldn't consider one without an EVF. LCDs are useless outdoors much of the time. It amazes me they sell cameras without viewfinders.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.