Mirror vs Mirrorless - Experiences
Dec 17, 2014 23:28:29 #
I am seeing mirrorless dslrs on store web sites, but none tell why mirrorless might be preferred. So I am asking UHH readers what they know about the mirrorless cameras from experience.
Dec 18, 2014 00:01:20 #
Robeng
Loc: California
John_F wrote:
I am seeing mirrorless dslrs on store web sites, but none tell why mirrorless might be preferred. So I am asking UHH readers what they know about the mirrorless cameras from experience.
Google articles by Trey Ratcliff & Michael Frye. Two wonderful photographers that switch to mirroless.
Dec 18, 2014 00:03:10 #
Mirrorless cameras are smaller, lighter and quieter. In general their image quality is not up to the best DSLRs but they are close and getting better. If you want a full feature set of gear to take on a trip where you have to fly, a mirrorless system might be just the thing.
Dec 18, 2014 00:05:06 #
John_F wrote:
I am seeing mirrorless dslrs on store web sites, but none tell why mirrorless might be preferred. So I am asking UHH readers what they know about the mirrorless cameras from experience.
In a few years all but retro cameras will be mirrorless.
I have had several DSLR Nikon's. They are marvelous machines.
But last spring I got a Sony NEX-7 (replaced by 6000). It has a 24MP ApS-C sensor and stunning EVF. It is mirrorless and weighs nothing compared to my D800.
We have a three week trip to Europe planned next year. I have already decided I'm taking the Sony.
I will probably move to a Nikon mirrorless when they get their act together. They are well behind Sony on camera technology but make much better lenses.
Dec 18, 2014 00:09:36 #
Well, I have a perfectly good 4/3 system, top-of-the-line Olympus camera, which, when I bought it, fit my hands well (My hands have at times been compared to coal-shovels), and I could take excellent photos with it.
Over time, arthritis developed, and that camera is now just too heavy to handle comfortably.
Since my E-5 had been the Olympus flagship of cameras, after a lot of research and talking to people, I decided to go with the new flagship, the mirrorless OM-D E-M1. It's not a cheap camera, but I haven't regretted buying it for one moment.
It is smaller than my E-5, but more important: it is lighter in weight. Not only the camera, but the dedicated micro 4/3 system lenses are lighter than the 4/3 system lenses as well.
One of the features I like best is the electronic viewfinder. Not an optical viewfinder, because there is no mirror to reflect the image to the viewfinder.
I never use live view, always the viewfinder, and with this electronic viewfinder, I find that if I change, say, the exposure time, I can actually see the image in the viewfinder go lighter or darker.
Another feature I like is the 5-axis image stabilization. With the arthritis my hands, actually all of me, have become more shaky as well and the IS helps to give me sharp pictures.
With an adapter, I can still use the 4/3 system lenses, they communicate with the camera even with the adapter.
There's a removable pop-up flash, it only takes seconds to put in into place, but I rarely use it. I kind of like "available light photography."
I'm sure that others will weigh in with their experiences, likes and dislikes of mirrorless cameras.
Over time, arthritis developed, and that camera is now just too heavy to handle comfortably.
Since my E-5 had been the Olympus flagship of cameras, after a lot of research and talking to people, I decided to go with the new flagship, the mirrorless OM-D E-M1. It's not a cheap camera, but I haven't regretted buying it for one moment.
It is smaller than my E-5, but more important: it is lighter in weight. Not only the camera, but the dedicated micro 4/3 system lenses are lighter than the 4/3 system lenses as well.
One of the features I like best is the electronic viewfinder. Not an optical viewfinder, because there is no mirror to reflect the image to the viewfinder.
I never use live view, always the viewfinder, and with this electronic viewfinder, I find that if I change, say, the exposure time, I can actually see the image in the viewfinder go lighter or darker.
Another feature I like is the 5-axis image stabilization. With the arthritis my hands, actually all of me, have become more shaky as well and the IS helps to give me sharp pictures.
With an adapter, I can still use the 4/3 system lenses, they communicate with the camera even with the adapter.
There's a removable pop-up flash, it only takes seconds to put in into place, but I rarely use it. I kind of like "available light photography."
I'm sure that others will weigh in with their experiences, likes and dislikes of mirrorless cameras.
Dec 18, 2014 01:43:05 #
For work, I mostly use a Nikon D800 and the trinity of lenses.
Great system! Been playing with some mirrorless cameras in the last year.
I had a Panasonic Lumix GX-1 and really liked the smaller form factor. The image quality was surprisingly good even though it is a micro 4/3rds sensor. I did not like using it, however. No built in eye level viewfinder and the auxillary finder was awkward to use. I looked at the GX-7 but was lured to the Fuji X-E1. I loved the retro styling and especially the controls. A real shutter dial on the body and aperture ring on the lens, just like I remember from my film days. The electronic viewfinder took only a little while to get used to. That's the only camera (with the amazing 18-55 mm lens) I took to Europe this last summer. Small, quiet, unobtrusive. I would take it again without hesitation. The updated X-E2 adds improved focusing and wifi.
I now have an X100s and am starting to fall for it big time. It has a hybrid electronic or optical viewfinder.
The DSLR focuses faster and is quicker in low light, so don't expect to be shooting sports with either Fuji but they do have a place in my arsenal.
Great system! Been playing with some mirrorless cameras in the last year.
I had a Panasonic Lumix GX-1 and really liked the smaller form factor. The image quality was surprisingly good even though it is a micro 4/3rds sensor. I did not like using it, however. No built in eye level viewfinder and the auxillary finder was awkward to use. I looked at the GX-7 but was lured to the Fuji X-E1. I loved the retro styling and especially the controls. A real shutter dial on the body and aperture ring on the lens, just like I remember from my film days. The electronic viewfinder took only a little while to get used to. That's the only camera (with the amazing 18-55 mm lens) I took to Europe this last summer. Small, quiet, unobtrusive. I would take it again without hesitation. The updated X-E2 adds improved focusing and wifi.
I now have an X100s and am starting to fall for it big time. It has a hybrid electronic or optical viewfinder.
The DSLR focuses faster and is quicker in low light, so don't expect to be shooting sports with either Fuji but they do have a place in my arsenal.
Dec 18, 2014 08:04:05 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
I had a Panasonic Lumix GX-1 and really liked the smaller form factor. The image quality was surprisingly good even though it is a micro 4/3rds sensor.
I had a Panasonic Lumix GX-1 and really liked the smaller form factor. The image quality was surprisingly good even though it is a micro 4/3rds sensor.
Goofy, just a minor addition: the 4/3 system and micro 4/3 system cameras have exactly the same size sensors (17.3 x 13 mm). The Oly E-5 and E-M1 are both CMOS as is the GX1.
And that's about as technical as I'll go.....
Dec 18, 2014 08:09:29 #
The d800 is great! The 24 to 70 f2.8 is great! Weighs a LOT, take up a lot of space in a carry on. Makes me look too much a pro.
On the other hand the Sony a6000 with the 18/55 or 10/100 is much lighter and easier to deal with when traveling. Its not a camera for shooting sports but it does a great job.
I looked at the Nikon 1's and was disappointed.
On the other hand the Sony a6000 with the 18/55 or 10/100 is much lighter and easier to deal with when traveling. Its not a camera for shooting sports but it does a great job.
I looked at the Nikon 1's and was disappointed.
Dec 18, 2014 08:39:20 #
ralphc4176
Loc: Conyers, GA
I have both types. The mirrorless cameras I have are Sony brand. Both are smaller and lighter than similar mirrored DSLRs. One has an APS-C sensor, the other full-frame. I have not noticed a difference in the quality of the images between the mirrorless cameras I have and the other, similar digital cameras I have, but I have not yet made extremely large prints of anything I took with a mirrorless camera.
Dec 18, 2014 09:08:17 #
Mirrorless have advantages but so do DSLRs. Mirrorless are smaller, have no mirror slap or blackout. There are some design advantages possible with lenses. They are mechanically less complex.
As to the electronic viewfinder, there are also advantages and disadvantages. You do see the image exactly as on the sensor. They are brighter in dark situations. But they also have disadvantages. First, there is a slight but noticeable time lag. You are behind real time in viewing. That is why you never see sports or news photogs using them.
The EVF has neither the resolution nor the dynamic range of the DSLR's optical viewfinder. This can be annoying, or even critical for high dynamic range situations, as you do not see the scene with the full dynamic range with which it can be captured. Also, mirrorless cameras eat batteries compared to DSLRs.
It should be remembered also that all DSLRs have a back LCD and can be basically be used in mirrorless mode when desired. And remember that with popular brands of DSLR you have a much greater range of lenses and accessories available.
I personally use both and much prefer my DSLRs despite the disadvantages.
As to the electronic viewfinder, there are also advantages and disadvantages. You do see the image exactly as on the sensor. They are brighter in dark situations. But they also have disadvantages. First, there is a slight but noticeable time lag. You are behind real time in viewing. That is why you never see sports or news photogs using them.
The EVF has neither the resolution nor the dynamic range of the DSLR's optical viewfinder. This can be annoying, or even critical for high dynamic range situations, as you do not see the scene with the full dynamic range with which it can be captured. Also, mirrorless cameras eat batteries compared to DSLRs.
It should be remembered also that all DSLRs have a back LCD and can be basically be used in mirrorless mode when desired. And remember that with popular brands of DSLR you have a much greater range of lenses and accessories available.
I personally use both and much prefer my DSLRs despite the disadvantages.
Dec 18, 2014 09:33:35 #
John_F wrote:
I am seeing mirrorless dslrs on store web sites, but none tell why mirrorless might be preferred. So I am asking UHH readers what they know about the mirrorless cameras from experience.
I moved to mirrorless two years ago and would never go back to a DSLR. Have the Olympus EM1 and EM5. Though my primary reason for switching was to reduce weight due shoulder issues, I have found the EVF to be a huge plus, allowing me to see the photo I'm about to take before and after I take it, within the viewfinder, and make adjustments. Being able to enlarge the image in the viewfinder to check and lock critical focus is a benefit to my eyes, which have never been great but are now far less than ideal for photography. For trips, I can take both cameras and 7 lenses covering 9 - 300 mm in a small pack weighing 6-7 lbs and my day kit (1 camera plus 3 lenses) is less than 3 lbs. This has increased my enjoyment of this hobby tremendously and I no longer second guess myself about taking the camera anywhere I go. I have no complaints about image quality, and print up to 16x20 regularly, larger occasionally.
Dec 18, 2014 09:44:53 #
Morning Star wrote:
Goofy, just a minor addition: the 4/3 system and micro 4/3 system cameras have exactly the same size sensors (17.3 x 13 mm). The Oly E-5 and E-M1 are both CMOS as is the GX1.
And that's about as technical as I'll go.....
And that's about as technical as I'll go.....
Good point. The naming can get confusing.
Just looking at these two, one would think the E-5 has a bigger sensor, but they are the same size.
Olympus must have a shrinky-dink machine.
If course it helps if you remove the mirror too.
Dec 18, 2014 09:45:43 #
MtnMan wrote:
In a few years all but retro cameras will be mirro... (show quote)
There are a couple of Zeiss lenses for the A6000.
Dec 18, 2014 09:51:59 #
Here's the main difference...[see photo]...size!
The D610 is a full-frame and the Fuji is a half-frame sensor (larger than the 4/3 cameras, but not a full-frame). Both lenses are f2.8 and with the sensor size difference, comparable. You can imagine the weight difference! Both take raw+jpg. And you really can't tell the difference in photo quality (except the full frame file is larger of course!). However, I do notice a lag in speed with the Fuji and I don't know how to describe that it feels "glitchy". I love the pictures and I love the weight, but if I really, really have to "get the shot" I'll go with my Nikon every time. A lot of people disagree with me about this, but that's how I feel.
The D610 is a full-frame and the Fuji is a half-frame sensor (larger than the 4/3 cameras, but not a full-frame). Both lenses are f2.8 and with the sensor size difference, comparable. You can imagine the weight difference! Both take raw+jpg. And you really can't tell the difference in photo quality (except the full frame file is larger of course!). However, I do notice a lag in speed with the Fuji and I don't know how to describe that it feels "glitchy". I love the pictures and I love the weight, but if I really, really have to "get the shot" I'll go with my Nikon every time. A lot of people disagree with me about this, but that's how I feel.
Dec 18, 2014 10:15:57 #
You can read all about the comparisons online, but it will likely be the standard one day.
I use a Nikon D300s and D200 for work (mostly still life forensic scenes), but have a NEX 6 for home that I bought in Dec of 2013. I researched for over half a year before getting the NEX-6, then Sony released to A6000 and I was full of buyers remorse. I decided to not look back and enjoy the NEX.
After a year, here are few personal notes:
I almost never use the Nikons for family events anymore and have even used it for some limited work because it will shoot in raw. I have not purchased a flash yet, but the few I tried do not communicate with the NEX other than full power trigger.
Positives:
Better low light shots, size, huge sensor, I can use my old Nikon glass, flash can flip up for simple bounce, size, 1080p movies, no loss viewfinder (I really need a viewfinder), smartphone control when its on a tripod for group photos that include me, fits in a jacket pocket, it is the future now.
Complaints:
Battery life.
It still feels small in my large hands, because it is small. Many, many years of holding a metal body Nikon leaves a kind of phantom loss feeling.
Speed. Not fast focus for sports (kids soccer) with the autofocus pancake lens it came with (16-50mm).
I have adaptors for my Nikon glass (35mm, 50mm, 18-200mm, 75-300mm?) and the images comparable to the Nikon bodies, but I really miss auto focus that is lost with I adapt the Nikon lenses. Yes, there is a cool focus feature that highlights to focus region, but for moving kids and pets, manual focus images for me are more often not in focus. I just do not have the correct lens for distant action shots.
Odd balance. With the Nikon 18-200mm lens, the device is unbalanced due to the lens weight and that will take getting used to. I rented a 18-200 Sony E mount lens and it is also over one pound and long (four inches). It was nice, but over $1000 and all motorized. It is what it is. The smaller body size is a benefit, but the balance for me is off and its very unbalanced on a tripod with my adapted lenses. The all in one 18-200 Sony will still fit in larger jacket pockets, but also gets heavy quickly.
People may prejudge you as less than professional using a mirrorless, but those who do are usually not experts anyway, therefore you are less intimidating looking when you are capturing life as it happens.
I use a Nikon D300s and D200 for work (mostly still life forensic scenes), but have a NEX 6 for home that I bought in Dec of 2013. I researched for over half a year before getting the NEX-6, then Sony released to A6000 and I was full of buyers remorse. I decided to not look back and enjoy the NEX.
After a year, here are few personal notes:
I almost never use the Nikons for family events anymore and have even used it for some limited work because it will shoot in raw. I have not purchased a flash yet, but the few I tried do not communicate with the NEX other than full power trigger.
Positives:
Better low light shots, size, huge sensor, I can use my old Nikon glass, flash can flip up for simple bounce, size, 1080p movies, no loss viewfinder (I really need a viewfinder), smartphone control when its on a tripod for group photos that include me, fits in a jacket pocket, it is the future now.
Complaints:
Battery life.
It still feels small in my large hands, because it is small. Many, many years of holding a metal body Nikon leaves a kind of phantom loss feeling.
Speed. Not fast focus for sports (kids soccer) with the autofocus pancake lens it came with (16-50mm).
I have adaptors for my Nikon glass (35mm, 50mm, 18-200mm, 75-300mm?) and the images comparable to the Nikon bodies, but I really miss auto focus that is lost with I adapt the Nikon lenses. Yes, there is a cool focus feature that highlights to focus region, but for moving kids and pets, manual focus images for me are more often not in focus. I just do not have the correct lens for distant action shots.
Odd balance. With the Nikon 18-200mm lens, the device is unbalanced due to the lens weight and that will take getting used to. I rented a 18-200 Sony E mount lens and it is also over one pound and long (four inches). It was nice, but over $1000 and all motorized. It is what it is. The smaller body size is a benefit, but the balance for me is off and its very unbalanced on a tripod with my adapted lenses. The all in one 18-200 Sony will still fit in larger jacket pockets, but also gets heavy quickly.
People may prejudge you as less than professional using a mirrorless, but those who do are usually not experts anyway, therefore you are less intimidating looking when you are capturing life as it happens.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.