Mirrorless vs regular cameras... Opinion
CHG_CANON wrote:
As you go through life, you will see that there is much we don't understand. The only thing we know for sure is removing the mirror makes a better digital camera.
The mirror to form live image on ground glass (SLR cameras) are form 1910, quick return by PENTAX is over 60 years old. Early electronic view finder (1980's) of video was terrible, TV from 1950's but w/o shutter movements and super realistic fine image which can be brighten up (of resolution of 4K or 8K?). Mirrorless is REAL the digital camera today. The SONY A-7 is the first in flight!
JD750 wrote:
A fair question.
Pic below is my philosophy.
(Ok the camera matters a little bit, but itโs not the main thing, but thatโs another thread.)
Another secret is VOLUME...if you take enough photos, some of them are going to be good.
I have a Canon R6 mirrorless. Love it. I shoot a lot of video outside and the display is useless especially on a bright day. With mirrorless what you see through the viewfinder is what you get.
CHG_CANON wrote:
If you want to be a better photographer, there are two things you must do above all others: buy a mirrorless camera and use it.
Reminds of the old joke about seeing the work of some famous photographer from years passed. Someone says "Just imagine what he (or she) could have done if they had a good camera!"
I suppose a person could build a house with NO windows in the rooms, just large flat-panel displays that show what is outside, along with time &temp and scrolling headlines.
I prefer seeing the real world as it is through windows. I even like optical viewfinders! I also own mirrorless, and they are OK.
EJMcD wrote:
Same as a DSLR.
Except itโs a lot harder to do video on a DSLR using the viewfinder.
This has been a hilarious chain of posts๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐คช
There are no downsides to mirrorless only upsides, well battery life is kind of a biggie to me.
Flickwet wrote:
There are no downsides to mirrorless only upsides, well battery life is kind of a biggie to me.
Did you just contradict yourself?
EJMcD wrote:
Not interested in video.
But your response was directly to someone talking about video. If youโre not interested why did you even respond?
SuperflyTNT wrote:
But your response was directly to someone talking about video. If youโre not interested why did you even respond?
Here you are again. My original post was not directed to you ...why did you reply to me?? Go bother someone else. You're good at it.
EJMcD wrote:
Here you are again. My original post was not directed to you ...why did you reply to me?? Go bother someone else. You're good at it.
Just ignore him, as I do.
This guy may or may not have a business in photography. I am not even sure. What I did learn is that his wife is better at it than he is, so is he venting his frustration here? Who knows.
Let him be a minor annoyance.
EJMcD wrote:
Did you just contradict yourself?
Both sides to the story, I use both, Oly MFT and Nikon DSLRs, tempted to go all in an a Z though
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Except itโs a lot harder to do video on a DSLR using the viewfinder.
Yeah, my little Lumix DG100 is about 90% dedicated to video.
Up to now, I never cared much about putting video in digital still cameras. But now that I have a light need for one, the DG100 works very well.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.