Full frame or Mirrorless
Dec 6, 2019 14:07:43 #
Billshots wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to decide on a new camera purchase. Currently I have a Canon 60D which I have had many years of enjoyment. I know the value of full frame having shot with film years ago. I just don't know if mirrorless is a necessity. Any help or thoughts would be appreciated.
I am trying to decide on a new camera purchase. Currently I have a Canon 60D which I have had many years of enjoyment. I know the value of full frame having shot with film years ago. I just don't know if mirrorless is a necessity. Any help or thoughts would be appreciated.
If I were you, I would go full frame as long as you either have full frame lenses or can afford to buy them.
As far as mirrorless, I think Sony offers a better camera than either Nikon or Canon, but ideally, you would need all new lenses, so this is a more expensive option. Mirrorless is not a NECESSITY. It’s just the newest technology.
As others have said, more information would generate better answers.
Dec 6, 2019 14:10:06 #
In photography you might discover who you are, and with a little luck, you might discover yourself shooting with a full-frame camera.
Dec 6, 2019 14:11:41 #
Retina
Loc: Near Charleston,SC
CHG_CANON wrote:
To me, the 'magic' of mirrorless is the Electronic... (show quote)
The EVF is indeed a great tool if only for manual focus with non-integrated lenses. My impression of optical finders on most DSLRs today is they are not as good as with most older film SLRs.
Dec 6, 2019 14:24:17 #
Retina wrote:
The EVF is indeed a great tool if only for manual focus with non-integrated lenses. My impression of optical finders on most DSLRs today is they are not as good as with most older film SLRs.
I gave up on my manual focus film bodies after determining I can't focus as well as the AF of my EOS film and digital bodies. But, when I added a Sony a7II, the EVF is all I need to manually focus and obtain as good results from my old FD lenses as anything the AF system can do (well, minus tracking moving subjects). I kept my FD lenses where they were being prepared for sale too. I've tried to coach those forgotten photographers who arrive here to UHH periodically to not look for adapters for their FD lenses to a DSLR, and instead, get a mirrorless body, with Sony being a great option for capability and cost. I haven't researched, but the Canon (and Nikon) mirrorless bodies should now be mature enough that FD adapters have been created for these bodies as well. Of course, the manual focus lenses don't magically become autofocus, but the body may add image stabilization along the focus zoom of the EVF.
Dec 6, 2019 14:35:20 #
[quote=Billshots]Hi all, I am trying to decide on a new camera purchase. I know the value of full frame having shot with film years ago. I just don't know if mirrorless is a necessity.
Mirrorless is just that.., the lack of, or need for a mirror. So that being said, a full frame camera could be mirrorless. It's just that the object of early embracers of mirrorless technology were companies like Olympus and Panasonic in an effort to produce a smaller, lighter full featured camera system. I think we will see a gradual transition to mirrorless as EVF and LCD screens get better (both Olympus and Panasonic/Lumix viewers are damned good already). I personally love my Olympus cams and find few if any issues due to a smaller sensor. Of course, if sensor size is a deciding factor, the Micro 4/3 format may not be for you?
Mirrorless is just that.., the lack of, or need for a mirror. So that being said, a full frame camera could be mirrorless. It's just that the object of early embracers of mirrorless technology were companies like Olympus and Panasonic in an effort to produce a smaller, lighter full featured camera system. I think we will see a gradual transition to mirrorless as EVF and LCD screens get better (both Olympus and Panasonic/Lumix viewers are damned good already). I personally love my Olympus cams and find few if any issues due to a smaller sensor. Of course, if sensor size is a deciding factor, the Micro 4/3 format may not be for you?
Dec 6, 2019 15:16:59 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Those mirrors are the chains holding back our photography.
Mirrors are chains? Holding back photography? In what sense are they HOLDING BACK photography? What specifically can a mirrorless do that CANNOT be done in some manner with another camera? Say a DSLR, or a RF, or even a Point and Shoot?
Dec 6, 2019 15:21:26 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
[quote=Beenthere]
That was the exact statement from an Olympus executive; "Micro 4/3rds is not for everyone." Yes, it is smaller, lighter, and less costly. But if one absolutely requires the lowest light shooting abilities and/or the most minimal depth of field, 4/3rds is not probably going to be their camera.
Billshots wrote:
Hi all, I am trying to decide on a new camera purc... (show quote)
That was the exact statement from an Olympus executive; "Micro 4/3rds is not for everyone." Yes, it is smaller, lighter, and less costly. But if one absolutely requires the lowest light shooting abilities and/or the most minimal depth of field, 4/3rds is not probably going to be their camera.
Dec 6, 2019 15:24:09 #
I'm a Canon shooter, too. When the EOS R with the lens adapters were announced, I saw this camera as my pathway to Full Frame. The EOS RP, might even fit into my "later in Life" budget.
For me I see the following reasons to go:
Full Frame: Better resolution and pixel size and depth for landscape and portraits. Also, better wide angle lens choice and ability to select shallow depth of field, especially for portraits, being Animal, Vegetable or Mineral.
Mirror less: Smaller lighter than a FF DSLR. OVF to see what the sensor sees. For Canon the new RF lens tech, quieter operation, and no mirror slap vibrations when mounted for long exposures.
But, for me the EF adapter makes it possible to use my 3 EF-S lenses and 2 EF lenses, and not be forced, day 1 to buy an EF or RF Standard zoom. Mid Life budget, again.
But I'm not in a rush. Neither advantage is compelling, and no paydays (I remember them) are riding on a Full Frame Image.
For me I see the following reasons to go:
Full Frame: Better resolution and pixel size and depth for landscape and portraits. Also, better wide angle lens choice and ability to select shallow depth of field, especially for portraits, being Animal, Vegetable or Mineral.
Mirror less: Smaller lighter than a FF DSLR. OVF to see what the sensor sees. For Canon the new RF lens tech, quieter operation, and no mirror slap vibrations when mounted for long exposures.
But, for me the EF adapter makes it possible to use my 3 EF-S lenses and 2 EF lenses, and not be forced, day 1 to buy an EF or RF Standard zoom. Mid Life budget, again.
But I'm not in a rush. Neither advantage is compelling, and no paydays (I remember them) are riding on a Full Frame Image.
Dec 6, 2019 15:31:27 #
I still have my Canon A-1 film camera. It took good pictures but my Canon Rebel T5 takes better pictures. The lens is probably the difference, right????
Dec 6, 2019 16:35:16 #
dasgeiss wrote:
I still have my Canon A-1 film camera. It took good pictures but my Canon Rebel T5 takes better pictures. The lens is probably the difference, right????
It's gotta be the shoes ....
Dec 6, 2019 17:58:13 #
1963mca wrote:
Mirrors are chains? Holding back photography? In what sense are they HOLDING BACK photography? What specifically can a mirrorless do that CANNOT be done in some manner with another camera? Say a DSLR, or a RF, or even a Point and Shoot?
Some of the answers are in the essay I wrote on page 4 of this thread. All the types you mentioned have discernible advantages and drawbacks. The key is to get what works best for you.
Dec 6, 2019 18:10:11 #
Ask me again in five years when Canon's mirrorless line has had time to develop - no pun intended. If you're shooting a 60D and absolutely, positively have to upgrade - consider the 90D. Unless you have a stable of EF full frame lenses the only real positive fact about a full frame upgrade is that it will cost you a lot of money.
Dec 6, 2019 18:10:34 #
hookedupin2005
Loc: Northwestern New Mexico
gvarner wrote:
It’s all about whistles and bells, each has its own pros and cons. I’m a crop sensor shooter and I don’t view full frame as being a necessity.
Unless you are a professional photographer, I don't consider ANY camera to be a necessity.
Dec 6, 2019 19:13:05 #
There have been some remarkable advances in the quality of crop sensors. Unless you are a committed pixel peeper or plan to print humongous prints, it’s unlikely you’ll see any difference between a good crop sensor and full frame. The advantage of mirrorless is the saving in weight, both in the camera and its fashioned lenses. A lighter camera bag is often of great importance to those of us on the far side of 70. I have an older Sony a6000 with a Zeiss lens and a Fuji X-T3. The quality of the images I get from both, but especially JPEGs right out of the Fuji, is terrific and gratifying. I have been doing photography for 65 years, know a little about it, and am confident in these judgments.
Dec 6, 2019 19:32:51 #
Bob Mevis wrote:
No mirrorless for me.
I’m in the same situation as zooman 1. I recently made the switch from a 5D M II to an EOS R. Both are full frame—which I much prefer. That’s just a personal choice. The R works fine with all my old EF lenses. I’m loving learning the new camera.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.