Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

You might note that there are still a lot of photographers using rangefinder Leica's and film. These are cameras that are 50 years old! The latest camera technology can and does offer improvements but these improvements are generally to make it easier to get a good picture.

I was away from serious amateur photography for years - was in the industry and got burned out - and when my interest was renewed times had really changed. One thing that amazed me was how large some of the full frame cameras had become. Back in the day some of the 6X6 CM roll film SLR cameras were smaller!

I ended up buying an APS-C mirrorless camera and am delighted with the capabilities. But any camera that works and that you are comfortable with and familiar with is a keeper.

Cheers

edrobinsonjr Loc: Boise, Idaho

WTH is a MILC?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There are two things that make photographers drool and swoon.... full frame cameras and mirrorless cameras. Those have been mutually exclusive objects of desire, except for Sony (well, and Leica too, but who cares since they cost more than a new Mercedes).

Now Canon and Nikon are talking about offering full frame mirrorless cameras, so it's sort of a double whammy. Their respective fans are doing backflips, salivating all over the place, having heart palpitations, etc.

Canon already has mirrorless cameras... but they're all APS-C right now, not full frame. Rumor has it, they have some prototypes of a full frame MILC model in field testing, but Canon isn't saying anything about it. There have only been some hints in interviews with some of their execs.

Nikon had a mirrorless system (Nikon 1) too... but they made the mistake of building it around 1" (CX) size sensor, which is smaller than APS-C or even micro 4/3 size sensors. The Nikon MILC were such an odd duck, there was little to no support for them and only serious Nikon fanboyz and fangirlz bought them... so they were discontinued last year. But they assured their fans that they'll be back with a new full frame MILCf... and have gone so far as to advertise it... teasers that don't give an actual launch date.

When MILC were first coming to the market, neither Canon nor Nikon seemed very enthusiastic about them... and their earlier efforts at producing them were sort of weak. Even today neither of them have produced a very impressive line of lenses for use on their MILC. Maybe they were concerned about undercutting their own DSLR sales. Between the two of them, Nikon and Canon have locked up 80% or more of the DSLR marketplace. Didn't want to mess with that! And they were probably taken by surprise at the popularity of MILC... Started to notice that some of the customers they were worried about were abandoning them to buy MILC from competitors like Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus.

Despite all the hype about FF and mirrorless... No, they won't make anyone's photographs "better". There's still some skill required, regardless of the type of camera.

MILC are good at SOME things.... But so are DSLR. Full frame are also good at SOME things... but so are APS-C and micro 4/3.

One of the "big deals" of MILC is that both the cameras and lenses might be smaller and lighter than DSLR system components. That's the main reason people cite for wanting a MILC.

There are some other cool features though... for example, most MILC use an electronic viewfinder that can do things a DSLR's optical viewfinder can't. Earlier EVFs were slow, but have improved to the point they are almost "real time" like optical viewfinders. EVFs can show "exposure simulation".... a preview of sorts, so that you don't need to guess at exposure settings. EVFs also can be brighter and easier to use in low light conditions. They also can have features like "focus peaking" to assist manual focusing.

One of the problems with earlier MILC was slow autofocus. They don't have a separate array of phase detection AF sensors, the way DSLRs do. Instead MILC initially relied upon contrast detection, which is inherently slower (same as DSLR Live View, at that time). But most of the the manufacturers figured out how to embed pairs of AF pixels right into the image sensor itself, to perform phase detection focusing and greatly improve performance. Canon actually introduced their first sensor of this type on one of their DSLRs (70D), but ultimately incorporated it into their M-series APS-C MILC, as well as most of their DSLRs in both FF and APS-C formats. All Canon's current MILC now use this form of AF.

Part of what killed off Nikon's MILC was that they hadn't developed a similar solution... they outsource most of their image sensors, so don't have the flexibility to innovate in the same way that Canon does, who make their own sensors. A lot of Nikon's image sensors are bought from Sony... but those are APS-C and full frame, not 1"/CX like were being used in Nikon 1. Since they will potentially be direct competitors, I imagine Sony would be a bit reluctant to sell Nikon APS-C or FF sensors with the embedded AF tech, for Nikon to use in a new MILC series.... but they must have worked out a deal or Nikon may have found an alternate source, if their advertisements are true and they're getting close to introducing a full frame MILC. We'll have to wait and see.

Another neat thing about MILC is that most use an electronic shutter. This can be quieter than the moving, electro-mechanical shutters (and mirror assembly) in DSLRs. The electronic shutters also have potential for faster shutter speeds than are practical with DSLRs.... 1/16000 and even 1/32000 may be possible (that's about the upper limit right now, though, with current sensor tech).

DSLRs are still preferred for other things, though. Most sports and many wildlife shooters still want an optical viewfinder. There also are far more lenses available for DSLRs, than there are for MILC. Also, MILC are hard on batteries. That EVF draws power continuously and the camera is "blind" when it's turned off (advantage to optical VF).

MILC can use DSLR lenses via adapters. However doing that defeats much of the size/weight advantage of a MILC, once it's are fitted with a lens designed for a DSLR, along with an adapter.

Full frame MILC, in particular, don't see very much advantage over DSLRs in size and weight. The camera body itself can be a bit smaller and lighter than a comparable DSLRs. But lenses capable of producing an image circle large enough to cover the bigger sensor are not much different in size and weight from comparable DSLR lenses.

Another problem is the need for different lens series... With their DSLRs, both Canon and Nikon already had two series of lenses: APS-C/crop only lenses for the camera using those size sensors, as well as full frame capable lenses for use on both formats. They each also had to develop yet another series of lenses especially for their MILC (APC-S format for Canon, 1"/CX for Nikon). This has been a slow process (in five years, Canon has only produced seven EF-M series lenses).

In a real sense, other manufacturers who dropped DSLRs completely and fully committed to MILC (Oly/Panasonic, Fuji).... or who very strongly tended in that direction (Sony).... have had an advantage when it comes to lenses. They've been able to put all or most of their R&D and manufacturing resources into developing lenses especially for their MILC systems. Canon and Nikon have a conundrum, soon to be made even worse if/when they launch their promised FF MILC.... yet another lens series may need to be produced especially for those. Canon, for example, could easily end up with four distinct series of lenses with limited interchangeability: EF, EF-S, EF-M (APS-C) and some sort of full frame capable EF-M! Nikon might find it a little easier.... with "only" three lens series: FX, DX and some sort of FX/MILC lens. Whatever they do for MILC, they pretty much have to continue to produce their two DSLR lens series since Nikon and Canon still enjoy strong DSLR sales (not increasing like MILC, but also not dropping off like the point n shoot market which has been decimated by smart phone cameras).

Frankly, I've wondered if it wouldn't make the most sense for Canon to design their new FF MILC camera to utilize their existing EF series DSLR lenses. There are upwards of 60 different models of those lenses already in production and sitting on store shelves, ready for folks to buy. There's little to be gained anyway, in size/weight savings with MILC-specific, FF capable lenses. Besides, does anyone want to wait 5 or 10 years for lenses to be developed and manufactured?! (That's what's happened with EF-M... where there's more of a size/weight advantage.) The other feature advantages of MILC.... EVF, electronic shutter, etc.... would be available, regardless whether the cameras use existing lenses or a new series.

P.S. I want a MILC... probably one of the Canon like the current M5.... in large part to use with manual focus lenses, including vintage rangefinder and SLR lenses via adapters. I can do some of that with my DSLRs, but there's a limit and some vintage lenses I've got in my collection aren't easily adapted (i.e., Canon FD/FL, Konica K/AR, Minolta MD). There's a lot more opportunity with adapted lenses on MILC, thanks to their short lens register (distance from flange to film/sensor plane), which allows room for adapters. Manual focus assist features like focus peaking are another reason I'd like to eventually add a MILC to my kit. I have little or no interest in a full frame MILC. For that, I'll stick with DSLRs. Or maybe I'll go "really big", with something like Fuji's GFX medium format mirrorless!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Canon wanted EXACTLY that reaction from EOS M system buyers! They and Nikon (with the 1 system) wanted to milk their dSLR systems for all they could. They wanted current dSLR users to think mirrorless was boring.

Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony all have other ideas, though. Now Canikon can’t ignore their upstart competition.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You will need to do a fair amount of reading to understand the many advantages mirrorless cameras bring us.

Purely technical image quality isn’t a reason. Significant weight savings are only valid for Micro 4/3 users.

WYSIWYG viewing
No finder blackout during exposure
Silent electronic shutter AND EVF used together won’t disturb anyone or any animal
Advanced video and audio features for filmmakers

Those are just a few of the reasons I switched to Lumix gear.

edrobinsonjr Loc: Boise, Idaho

Thanks much. We need an AD (acronym dictionary) these days...

Ed

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Has he updated the firmware to version 2.7? That’s worth a try...

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

re: selling camera gear on eBay. I recently sold my Nikon D810 on eBay and a Nikon V1 V3. Hindsight says I probably should of just kept them because of the fees they charge anymore. That or try to sell them on a photography/FB forum to avoid the fees. I think they took out like almost $300 on the D810.

And yes, once they release the newer products you won't get anywhere near what you could get before they release them. And even now, with anticipation of the new models coming out, they probably have already lost lots of $'s in value.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You mean a Lumix GH5/GH5s, or Sony A7s II, right?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes, I use a Lumix GH4 for all my stills and video. One kit does everything I need.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Go to YouTube and search “ how do mirrorless cameras work.”

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

They biggest deal is the EVF - WYSIWYG - and NO mirror or mirror box or mirror slap/vibration, no focus screen, no focus calibration or image blackout and higher frame rates.

There is probably more that I left out .....

..

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Never heard of calibrating a mirror, much less recalibrating.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

you’re