What are mirrorless cameras (Page 2): Mirrorless is nothing but a limited video recorder. You will never get the real life look through the viewfinder as you will the DSLR or SLR for...

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

Mirrorless is nothing but a limited video recorder. You will never get the real life look through the viewfinder as you will the DSLR or SLR for that matter. You are looking at a JPEG video representation of the subject. That should tell you enough right there. If you want to go mirrorless then buy a full blown video camera. The video cameras take stills also.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

throughrhettseyes wrote:

Mirrorless is nothing but a limited video recorder. You will never get the real life look through the viewfinder as you will the DSLR or SLR for that matter. You are looking at a JPEG video representation of the subject. That should tell you enough right there. If you want to go mirrorless then buy a full blown video camera. The video cameras take stills also.

^^^^ Bad advise right there, and not accurate at all. ^^^^

Do tell us, have you looked through any of the latest Mirrorless cameras EVFs?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

throughrhettseyes wrote:

Mirrorless is nothing but a limited video recorder. You will never get the real life look through the viewfinder as you will the DSLR or SLR for that matter. You are looking at a JPEG video representation of the subject. That should tell you enough right there. If you want to go mirrorless then buy a full blown video camera. The video cameras take stills also.

You could have pulled single frames from a movie camera, too, but misusing tools {such as hammering with a pipe wrench} has never made much sense.

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

Fujifilm XT-2

edrobinsonjr Loc: Boise, Idaho

rehess wrote:

You could have pulled single frames from a movie camera, too, but misusing tools {such as hammering with a pipe wrench} has never made much sense.

Why, pray tell, is pulling a single frame from a video misusing tools?

3dees

not for me. I love big cameras. I have had cameras with motor drives, winders, and grips, for over 40 years and I have small hands. go figure.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

edrobinsonjr wrote:

Why, pray tell, is pulling a single frame from a video misusing tools?

It's what I did before prices came down on still cameras (which also do video, by the way!)
I keep saying the future of still photography is frame capture from 8k video.

And as a viewfinder hater since I was a kid, I actually found a micro four thirds camera with an EVF that I can stand to use.

srshorb

agree wholeheartedly. Pic quality excellent, half the size, fast and quiet. Love the kit lens 18-55mm Stan

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

edrobinsonjr wrote:

Why, pray tell, is pulling a single frame from a video misusing tools?

First of all, I didn't say 'video' - I said 'movie'. A single frame from a Super Eight is more like an Instamatic 110 than like a 35mm. Yes, I know that theater quality films were 35mm, but using a camera from Hollywood to produce stills - with no intention of using it as a movie - is like killing ants with a jackhammer.

The future of stills may come from 8K video, but right now, a single frame from a true video camera - which was the comment I was responding to - is much lower quality than a still from a good camera, either DSLR or MILC.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

edrobinsonjr wrote:

Why, pray tell, is pulling a single frame from a video misusing tools?

A lot of times video on a non-dedicated video camera (like a DSLR or a mirrorless camera) crop the image more than it would in "stills" mode. Therefore, it also doesn't necessarily use all the pixels on the sensor. That said, some camera have a frame grab mode from video–Panasonic comes to mind. Which makes sense, since they are probably the best hybrid (video and still) manufacturer out there.

Kuzano

Mirrorless came on the scene in 2006, as I recall. Olympus and Panasonic micro 4:3

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

[quote=rehess]First of all, I didn't say 'video' - I said 'movie'. A single frame from a Super Eight is more like an Instamatic 110 than like a 35mm. Yes, I know that theater quality films were 35mm, but using a camera from Hollywood to produce stills - with no intention of using it as a movie - is like killing ants with a jackhammer. You should try it, works great, them little suckers is dead, dead, dead

The future of stills may come from 8K video, but right now, a single frame from a true video camera - which was the comment I was responding to - is much lower quality than a still from a good camera, either DSLR or MILC.[/quote

JD750 Loc: SoCal

linkadv5 wrote:

I have a nikon DSLR camera. I have bought a few lenes for the camera. I really have to save up to buy this stuff. Is this mirrorless technology a step up in, quality, or is it like TVs, a new gimick every 6 months ? A previous article stated that this mirrorless wave of technology will hit us this summer, with many more cameras and lenes. Are we going to eventually get rid of DSLR technology? Should we continue to buy DSLR technology? Any thoughts from folks with limited budgets.

SLR and DSLR cameras have a mirror and optical viewfinder. Mirrorless means they do not have a mirror and technically rangefinder and view cameras camera are mirrorless, as are point and shoots. But in today’s jargon a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera means a very modern high tech camera with an electronic viewfinder. They are the future of camera tech, as the manufacturers have all admitted.

Best advice I can give you is go to a camera store, and ask to see various mirrorless cameras including micro43 format and other mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, Sony, Fuji, et.al. Then play with them, look through the viewfinder take some pics. See how they feel. See if you like them. This may take a few trips. It’s fun. Then you can decide for yourself if you like the idea of “mirrorless”.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

You had received mostly good advice, with a few ignorant replies. With that said, mirrorless or not, your pictures would look mostly identical, and neither format is going to make you a better photographer. If possible, do visit a good camera store in your area, because we wouldn’t know what would click for you. Get the camera that YOU like and get the best lenses you can afford. Although, there is nothing wrong with your Nikon camera to prevent you from taking award winning photos. Which brings me to my most important point. Focus on taking much better photographs, by studying light, composition and what makes a good subject matter. No camera or lens, no matter how expensive, will ever be able to help you. Good luck and remember that any of the brands mentioned and suggested, are capable of taking as good a photo as you are capable of. Today’s gear is so good, that we are the weak link.

Way2slk Loc: Bluffton SC

I just bought my Sony A6000 24.2 megapixels mirrorless camera and I love it. You can get a 16-50 and a 55-200 kit lens for about $800 and the beauty of this camera is there are adapters to use so you can use you OLD lenses. I have my 50mm Canon 1.8 FD lens from the 80's and I also have a 90mm 2.8 macro lens and the photos are magnificent. the adapter was $19 from amazon.

Just a personal observation.

(Download)