Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Mirrorless vs DSLR

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,201

    Mirrorless vs DSLR

    I know we have discussed mirrorless vs dSLR several times. But this is a well thought out article specifically regarding FF mirrorless by someone that has heavily invested in both:

    http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...fatal-mistake/

    Its interesting as now that Sony has released the "G" series lenses, much of what has been foreseen is reality. Sure you can make a smaller body, but to get the light gathering ability and to project a FF image circle, you still need a large lens. I actually thought there would be some savings in size/weight. Turns out, as designed, not really.

    And that is only meant as an observation. If someone is happy with Sony, great. A one time contributor to our forum wrote about his switch to mirrorless awhile ago. Granted, that was to an APS-C body and the above review is FF.
    Last edited by Kayaker72; 04-05-2016 at 11:39 AM.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Mesa, AZ, USA
    Posts
    63
    I believe each person should search and choose what works best for him/her. I started with a T2i then moved to a 7D. I found the noise from the 7D was too much for me so I picked up a 6D (Yes, it's called GAS). I love the 6D but was tired of the size and weight of the load to be carried around for my style of shooting.

    I then found the Fuji X-T1 and picked up the lenses to go with it. Unlike the Sony the size and weight are an advantage. I can carry my 10-24, 18-55, 55-200, and 27 mm pancake in one bag plus extension tubes. This allows me to walk about the outdoors prepared to shoot whatever catches my curiosity and all I need can be carried in one simple messenger bag.

    However I do find I still prefer the 6D when it comes to night shooting and really close Macro, so I have held on to that camera and use both the 6D and the X-T1 based on what works best for the moment.
    Let No One Walk Alone
    --------------
    Bill

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,201
    Nice. I have the M1 that I use for that purpose. I am still thinking about even going smaller, the GX7. But, for now, when I want small, its the M1. Or, of course, if I want really convenient, it is the iPhone. Vast majority of time, though, when I want a camera it is the 5DIII.

    On the topic of iPhone camera, I was recently in LA and had some time to kill before a redeye. Headed to the beach and lined up a sunset shot with my iPhone and a pier....and....let's just say I still see the need for the dSLR.

    Name:  small IMG_1612.JPG
Views: 63
Size:  143.0 KB

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,043
    Good points. Somewhat known, perhaps overlooked - I had a mirror-less system back in 1976, it stomped on all the Canon, Nikon, Leica and even Hassy offerings... It was the Deardorf 8x10 with a set of 3 Schneiders of various focal lengths. Had dynamic range that was unparalleled, could crop the image like crazy - you get the point. (Frames per minute or even minutes per frame might be another parameter ) (yea it wasn't mine, it was the camera stores'/studio in which I worked but I got to use it on Sundays).

    Bigger sensors have behave/need differently than smaller sensors. What was grabbed as an advantage was a marketing wiz flop vs. what I think may be the real advantages. With more real estate there are more options. Even in the view camera I could change ISO between frames, even after the film was loaded by changing the development times. Much of this is about compromises in sensor size/density and certainly speed.

    Regardless of sensor size (and resulting system size) here is my beef w/ the mirror -

    Lots of mechanics that can go wrong.
    Sound
    Can't electronically amplify the image in dark settings
    Can't electronically aid me in focus peaking/highlight/blacks (I have take a frame and look at the LCD on the back - why take the camera away from my eye?

    The original advantage of the optical view finder is seeing what the lens sees. Soon w/ improved display tech, we can improve what our eyes see at the extremes of the imaging effort/frame, etc. I for see being able to tone map an HDR view in the electronic view finders some day in the future.

    Give up on mirrorless = smaller, rather focus on the electronic aids to the imaging process. I really don't want to bust out my canvas and paint, nor the view camera, nor my old film bodies, nor film. Help me take the best compromised picture for the system size I have chosen.

    My 2 pennies.

    Mike
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,903
    Mirrorless is the way of the future. If you can eliminate a mechanical part that introduces shake why not get rid of it.
    You can look at the current mirrorless bodies and say there is no way it would come up to the level of current DSLR's, but the mirrorless bodies of today will not be the replacements for DSLR's.

    I have always heard the idea of a SLR was to give you the same light path as the lens that you were using. This can be replicated digitally now with an LCD viewfinder in live view. Just because they are mirrorless doesn't mean you have to hold the camera at arms length to shoot.

    There are still a few limiting factors for a FF mirrorless still to overcome. Auto focus performance, specifically shooting action is one of the main.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,043
    I hacked a LCD Loop/Hood - for my T3i. I bought a cheap ebay diopter eye cushion, just to have something that connected w/o tape/magnets, etc.

    Drilled a couple of very small holes for the very small screws that hold the LCD hood to the diopter eye cushion and then put the two together (with a tiny piece of foam as the there is a slight angle to the LCD hood.)

    Works wonderfully..... except. It is big, heats up a sensor that isn't designed to be "on" all the time (I imagine I could train myself to hit the live view button in the 5d3).

    I did buy a LCD hood for the 5d3 just haven't gotten around to the other part of the hack w/ the eye piece.

    With Magic Lantern I get all the focus/exposure features. Just in a large form vs. through viewfinder.
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  7. #7
    Senior Member conropl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    1,458
    Mirrorless may not be ready yet, but I can not see why a manufacturer would not push the technology forward until it is equivalent or better that DSLR's. The reason is for quality & cost reductions. The more you can drive towards replacing mechanical systems with electronics, the more you can drive your costs down and the quality issues tend to be reduced as well. As an example, if you can get the LCD viewfinder working on par with the DSLR, then you can eliminate a fair amount of precision injected and machined parts as well as high end glass for the mirror and prism. All those components tend to add more variability to the system than would mature electrical systems that would replace the mechanical systems. Additionally, as electrical systems mature, the costs continue to be driven down as better manufacturing methods and shear volume eliminate waste and variability. On the contrary, mechanical systems used today are already mature and new injection, machining, and glass production methods are not changing very rapidly (and therefore costs are stagnant or on the rise due to inflation). Electronics tend to defy inflation as they mature, and the quality will improve beyond the mechanical systems. So... are all the electronics ready to make the mirrorless change over yet? Probably not, but they probably will be some day in the near future.

    Being a Mechanical Engineer (by background and training), it is sad to see one more mechanical system thrown in the scrap heap. However, I also understand that it is a sound business decision to do so, and will likely be a better long term path to drive improvements to the consumer faster than trying to keep the mechanical systems alive.

    Pat
    5DS R, 1D X, 7D, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 24mm f/1.4L II, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.8, 100mm Macro f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, 580EX-II
    flickr

  8. #8
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,006
    The Fuji system makes sense as a way to get quality with very good lenses and an APS-C sensor. The system is quirky with dodgy flash support. The micro 4/3 sensor size is so small.

    I don't think Canon's brought out a very serious mirrorless option -- yet. Bare minimum the system needs a viewfinder.

    Dave

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,903
    Quote Originally Posted by conropl View Post
    Mirrorless may not be ready yet, but I can not see why a manufacturer would not push the technology forward until it is equivalent or better that DSLR's.
    i think what many overlook is that the technology is being pushed forward right in front of us. Every time you shoot in live view you are shooting mirror less. The 1Dx II will have faster tracking in live view, it will be touch screen focus. Modify the body and remove the mirror and you have a great mirror less body.

    We can say that Canon has not released a FF mirror less, I would contend it is as much because of marketing as technology.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    We can say that Canon has not released a FF mirror less, I would contend it is as much because of marketing as technology.
    It seems clear that the big boys, Canon and Nikon, are generally disinterested in making interesting mirrorless cameras. They have the most to lose if mirrorless becomes a larger % of camera sales and DSLRs become a smaller %.

    You'd have to imagine they have the technology though and if they chose to deploy it they could make a much better mirrorless camera than Sony or Fuji.

    Dave

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •