CLF Loc: Raleigh, NC

Started a new thread so as not to step on the other. As a whole lot of you know I am new to digital and have been reading the posts on this site and learning everyday something new. I looked at mirror less cameras for many reasons I got from the members here but ended up with a Canon Rebel T5 package. Just wanted my old style of camera updated (used Canon 35s from the late 60s). One of the items I have learned from the camera is that I can lock the mirror up and use only the LCD for everything. I know the camera is a DSLR but does it not give all the benefits of a mirror less camera such as reduced vibrations of the mirror movement? I was just wondering if this is not one of the best functions of being mirror less.

Greg

OviedoPhotos

Mirror-less camera's are usually lighter weight and smaller.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I think the big advantage of mirrorless is the "less" part - less bulk and less weight. One thing I like about the DSLR is being able to look through an actual, optical viewfinder. I have a Sony RX100 III mirrorless, but that has a viewfinder. I don't like holding the camera in front of me to take a shot - less support, more shake.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

For me: Not really, and I do shoot with a mirroless (Olympus OMD-E M5II) and Canon DSLRs
The pluses for mirrorless for me are;
#1 Physically smaller, and lighter, and that includes the lenses.
#2 You can stll have an electronic viewfinder so you are not always looking at the screen on the back of the camera. I havn't really used the rear viewfinder except when in the menus etc.
#3 A lot quiter, great when shooting classical music concerts.
#4 The "real time" histogram in the viewfinder is great.

Downsides.
#1 Reduced battery life.
#2 Cost - they are a fair bit dearer, at lest around here, than an entry level DSLR and kit lens

I havn't use mine for shooting fast moving objects like birds in flight or motor racing (yet).

Dick Z. Loc: Downers Grove IL

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I like the mirrorless concept, I don't like it's execution, I like a viewfinder, the mirrorless I've looked at are almost as bulky as a DSLR, higher $$, at a certain point getting smaller means it's too small for my hands, now I might be tempted by an interchangeable lens G-15, shouldn't be all that hard in this day and age, I remember seeing a interchangeable lens Contax with a adjustable viewfinder and it was old in the 60's. Bob.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I shoot mirrorless now and mirror slap is not one of the reasons. In fact, mirrorless has its own version of that problem, called shutter shock, which we mirrorless folk must learn how to avoid. The main reason I switched was size/bulk/weight due to shoulder problems. My travel kit with two cameras and 6 lenses covering 12-300 focal lengths and including 3 excellent primes weighs less than 5 lbs.

Other advantages are good image stabilization and the electronic viewfinder which lets me see the image I'm about to shoot in the VF and make needed settings changes before shooting. The disadvantages include limited low light performance and the need to be very picky in technique since I don't have as much wiggle room with my smaller sensor.

Most importantly, you have chosen a camera you like and feel comfortable with. Just enjoy using it!! Though we all have our preferences, all modern cameras are capable of great images, so learn your equipment and have fun.

jcboy3

Nearly everything I've bought for my Nikon D750 has been
twice as expensive as for my Olympus EM1.

Compare the holy trinity setup:

Nikon D750 - $1,996.95
14-24 f/2.8 - $1,996.95
24-70 f/2.8 - $1,886.95
70-200 f/2.8 - $2,396.95
TC-14E III - $496.95

Nikon Total: $8,774.75

Olympus E-M1 - $1,299.00
7-14 f/2.8 - $1,299.00
12-40 f/2.8 - $899.00
40-150 f/2.8 - $1,399.00
MC-14 - $349.00

Olympus Total: $5,245.00

Now mirror less is newer, and doesn't have as broad a selection of lenses as DSLRs. Especially true for Sony and Fujica. The micro 4/3 format (Olympus/Panasonic plus) does have an extensive selection, but is only recently getting high quality in ultra-wide and has yet to have high quality (or anything) in the super telephoto range (300+).

One cost point for DSLRs is that the fast 50mm lenses are quite inexpensive. But the other comparable primes are more expensive (but not twice as expensive). The micro 4/3 pro zooms are a comparative bargain.

You save on accessories as well; smaller bags, filters, tripods, ball heads. All size and weight dependent items will be cheaper for comparable micro 4/3.

Personally, I like the EVFs. I get color balance and exposure feedback as I'm shooting. I can zoom in to check focus, and overlay level gauges and histograms as desired. I don't have to worry about light leak with long exposures. And I can boost the display to see what I'm shooting in low light conditions. Finally, I can use an electronic shutter (on some models) to eliminate all vibration for long exposures or HDR brackets.

I can also control camera exposure, focus and zoom (using power zoom lenses) from my phone with WiFi on my Panasonic GH3. Really useful when I put the camera on a boom.

For me, I shoot over 90% with mirror less. I use the DSLRs for some sports and events, and some wildlife (where I need really fast focus, bursts while tracking, or long telephoto). But I prefer the small size and low weight of micro 4/3; just easier to get around. I can take a more flexible selection of lenses, and I usually have at least one flash.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

[quote=jcboy3]Nearly everything I've bought for my Nikon D750 has been
twice as expensive as for my Olympus EM1.


Nikon Total: $8,774.75


Olympus Total: $5,245.00


Personally, I like the EVFs. I get color balance and exposure feedback as I'm shooting. I can zoom in to check focus, and overlay level gauges and histograms as desired. I don't have to worry about light leak with long exposures. And I can boost the display to see what I'm shooting in low light conditions. Finally, I can use an electronic shutter (on some models) to eliminate all vibration for long exposures or HDR brackets.




Personal choice , I don't shoot Nikons, just never liked the handling, all my current cameras together are less than your Olympus set, already have all the bags, tripods etc I need, might go for some filters or upgrade a monopod if I see something really good, don't have a boom so that probem is nonexistent, while I own 2 I tend to avoid flash if possible and I have yet to see an EVF that is as good as an optical viewfinder, not looking very hard satisfied with what I've got,
Canon T1i, T4i, 18-55(2), 55-250, 24mm, 40mm Sigma 17-70 and a G-15, 2 tripods, mono pod, shooting stick that becomes hiking stick/monopod, multiple sizes of bags that do not scream expensive camera gear here, everything is lightweight and easy to carry, We all have to use what we are comfortable with. Bob.

teesquare Loc: USA

minniez and jcboy3 have covered what I could say - with one caveat:

The latest generation of EVFs are lag free - in a practical sense. That is, some of them have no perceived lag.
And - they offer the benefit of usability in extremely low light conditions whereas our optical viewfinders would not be of benefit.

Mirrorless, just like every other technology - continues to get better. Is it where you would be comfortable with the conversion? That is something only you can determine and based on your preferred shooting style, and habits.

For me - it was about an attempt to reduce size and weight for easier hiking, travel etc. Yes there are some trade-offs, but those were not significant to me, based on my usage of the gear.

I would love to know how much of the push for mirrorless products may be coming from the recognition that baby boomers are staying engaged in activity much longer than previous generations, thus - maybe the mirror less size/weight compression is aimed at many of us that find ourselves at the crux of many issues of "compromise" in our lives?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I have owned 5 mirror less cameras including the EM 1.

The top of the line ML are competitive with entry level DSLRs or maybe even a little bit better, if you can get past your biases.

The olys and panys don't complete with top of the line Canons and Nikons. Not sure about sonys but with my inventory of lenses its not practical to find out.

My cropped images with average lenses are far better that anything I got from the ML cameras even with their best lenses.

I think they have potential and eventually with rule but need to advance some what.

Michael Christy

We may get a better idea of cost if we compare Sony FX Mirror Less with Nikon D750. Not only the cost but also the weight should be taken into account to make a fair comparison.

HEART Loc: God's Country - COLORADO

Convert from Nikon. Now only Sony. Mirrorless only from now one. Cost, weight, speed, fast lenses - will never go back to Nikon.

"He didn't come with the camera..."

BebuLamar

The one thing a DSLR has and the mirrorless doesn't is the reflex viewfinder. If you don't use the reflex viewfinder then I rather get the Sony A6000 than the Canon 5Ti. Why have the viewfinder that you don't use?

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: