The attractiveness of mirrorless cameras (Page 4): I am just switching to mirrorless for casual, street and travel photography. My old set up for this task: Nikon D850 + Zeiss 50mm...

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

10MPlayer wrote:

The body is smaller and weighs less. Because of physics, the lenses are bigger and weigh more. I am not sold yet. If someone can show me how the entire package of body and lens is smaller and lighter I'd like to see it.

I am just switching to mirrorless for casual, street and travel photography.

My old set up for this task: Nikon D850 + Zeiss 50mm lens. Weight--about 4 pounds.

My new set up for this task: Sony a6500 + Zeiss 16-70mm zoom. Weight--a little less than 2 pounds.

Of course I give up full frame for crop sensors and about 20MP. But for my intended purpose, that is a fair trade off.

So far, I am quite happy with the image quality. This image was taken with the Sony, although with the Zeiss 12mm lens, which weighs about the same as the 16-70 zoom.

(Download)

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

rond-photography wrote:

I think the bottom line is - they are different. ... (show quote)

I would just add that native Fuji lenses for their XF cameras are excellent.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Cdouthitt wrote:

Do explain how all others have tried to copy it as I’m not familiar with what makes it so special.

Canon EF mount was all digital and electronic.
Aperture, focus and all other operations.
All others were using mechanical aperture levers slapped by the camera to the lens and a screwdriver motor in the camera to mechanically twist a screw in the lens to drive some mechanical gears for focus.
Only 30 years later have the others all caught up. Because of this digital interface when Canon introduced the RF mount all EF and EF-S lenses were 100% compatible and actually enhanced beyond their original capabilities because of the simple control adapter. No mechanical gears or levers just software communications.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

cboysen wrote:

I probably missed the initial discussions as to why the interest in mirrorless cameras, but I've been wondering: are they in some ways better than DSLRs? If so, how? Are they lighter? Cheaper? Do they use better lenses? I'd appreciate answers. Thanks.

================

I bought a used mirrorless Sony A-6000 from a student that she had dropped, for 200 bucks, she bought a new one. I had taken the lens apart to see IF I could use the mounting ring to use on other lenses. NO! That would not work, so I put it back together. After that, I powered it up to find that it now WORKED just fine. It came with only an 18-55 lens on it, and I bought a "Lens Adapter" to take my assortment of Canon lenses.

This "little camera" really produces some fine images. Some of the lenses I have will not auto-focus well, but no matter, being that I was (and still am) a now and then focus manually guy, I find it a good camera for some things I do. I can make very good Prints from this camera up to 20X30 with careful editing. In that, the bulk of my printing is that of 13X19 this works good and well.

As a simple carry-around camera it is great for "Street Work". I teather it from a neck strap and have a remote (cable release) in my pocket to get some nice candid shots. The LCD can move to a position where all I have to do is look down, and depress the shutter button. (Not with the large Canon Lenses, mind you, but with the 18-55mm).

All in all - Yes - I am pleased with this little box, and it is good for getting shots that quite possibly I would not get with the Larger Cameras. :-)

=0=

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Mirrorless means at least one fewer moving part whose axis can wear out. What you lose is the 'live' view finder. The EVF shows you what the sensor will capture, which has its own advantage.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

cboysen wrote:

I probably missed the initial discussions as to why the interest in mirrorless cameras, but I've been wondering: are they in some ways better than DSLRs? If so, how? Are they lighter? Cheaper? Do they use better lenses? I'd appreciate answers. Thanks.

There are some differences but not much difference when you compare the full frame models. The full frame models are just about as large as their DSLR counterparts. The native lenses are as large or larger than DSLR counterparts. So you can't really consider them as being lighter or much smaller. That said, they might be a little quieter since you don't have a shutter making noise like their DSLR counterpart. Other than that, there's not much of an advantage in the full frame models.

The APS-C models are much smaller and the native lenses are much smaller too. So small, light, and quiet are the largest benefit with ML here. The Fuji XT-3 is quite the little camera. It's also got one of the best burst rates and focusing systems for an ML and outdoes most APS-C DSLR's.

Some day in the future, they will make a sensor and lens in a small package like in our phones these days, that will outperform "todays" DSLR cameras. But who know's how far the DSLR's might also go in the future. I sense that a really small camera that has a really small sensor will be able to capture unfathomable detail and will have a computer like chip to be able to tell it how much dept of field you want, how much zoom, etc.... But for now it hasn't progressed that far.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

10MPlayer wrote:

The body is smaller and weighs less. Because of physics, the lenses are bigger and weigh more. I am not sold yet. If someone can show me how the entire package of body and lens is smaller and lighter I'd like to see it.

Olympus...

Shutterbug57

burkphoto wrote:

Can you point us to some statistics that back that up?

I know one professional who beats the hell out of his Lumix mirrorless cameras, and they keep on taking it.

https://naturalexposures.com/panasonics-lumix-g9/

View cameras are technically mirrorless and have interchangeable lenses. Spell check changed were to wear. I hate spell check.

I have two mirrorless cameras, a Fuji X-T2 and an Intrepid 4x5.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Shutterbug57 wrote:

View cameras are technically mirrorless and have interchangeable lenses. Spell check changed were to wear. I hate spell check.

I have two mirrorless cameras, a Fuji X-T2 and an Intrepid 4x5.

Ah, artificial intelligence! It ought to be called spell wreck.

Bill P

[quote If someone can show me how the entire package of body and lens is smaller and lighter I'd like to see it.[/quote]

I have a Panasonic GX7 and an Olympus EM5ii and a Nikon D3. As an example, with the Nikon, my most used lens is the 17-35/2.8 zoom, That lens by itself weighs more than my Panasonic 7-14/4 and either of the two bodies. The D3 body weighs more than the two m4/3 cameras together. The D3 with lens weighs as much as my entire m4/3 outfit and bag.

If you compare the new Nikon FF mirrorless with previous Nikon DSLRs it's not a big difference, but what most of the deniers are unaware of is that the lens is much smaller and lighter for smaller formats than for FF.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Sometimes the smaller size can be a disadvantage. DSLR's just feel better in the hands. I use both, but I think it comes down to using the right tool for the job.

Bill P

Shutterbug57 wrote:

Apparently yes. Mirrorless camera’s with interchangeable lenses wear out way before SLRs.

On what facts do you base this judgement?

Bill_de Loc: US

John_F wrote:

Mirrorless means at least one fewer moving part whose axis can wear out. What you lose is the 'live' view finder. The EVF shows you what the sensor will capture, which has its own advantage.

As far as less moving parts, don't most mirrorless cameras move the sensor to accomplish image stabilization? Probably a very slight distance but with speed and agility necessary to accomplish the task.

--

Shutterbug57

Bill P wrote:

On what facts do you base this judgement?

See above on pg 4.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

sirlensalot wrote:

Sometimes the smaller size can be a disadvantage. DSLR's just feel better in the hands. I use both, but I think it comes down to using the right tool for the job.

Haven’t found this to be disadvantage since 2013...when I moved away from DSLRs.