Considering a switch from Full frame DSLR to mirrorless, have a few questions

[unpopular]

An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.

IDK. Just use a fixed lens with an optical finder and AF. Personally I think optical finders and rangefinders outperform SLR, especially in low light.

 

[Derrel]

Buy a Sony A7r and you'll get a SLIGHTLY smaller body...but the lenses will be just as large as the lenses for a Nikon D600. And at this time there are almost NO lens choices for the A7 series...it's a brand-new mount, and Sony rolled the cameras out with basicvally, no lenses to choose from. trading in a D600 and five lenses for an A7r and no lenses is a bad move.

If you want to go "small", you really need to look at how big the lenses are.Fuji's X-series lenses ar smallish, but heavy. I would definitely look at the m4/3 format if you really want a light, small,portable option. Full-frame is still full-frame.

 

[nzmacro]

Id be very interested in this thread, Id love to have an A7R, Its funny, the thing I would struggle with most is the view finder I reckon. I havent looked through the A7R version but looking at the digital image as oposed to the SLR mirror would take me aaagggeess to get used to.

That's what I thought as well Chris. No way would I go back to an OVF I've seen all sorts of things thrown at mirrorless, no good for sports, no good for BIF's, the EVF is laggy, its like looking at a TV screen, gees I've seen everything possible said about mirrorless and EVF's all completely wrong and yet, they offer some things an OVF cannot. There will always be a preference I guess and mine is now EVF. A little different I guess because I can't stand AF either. What you need to do Chris, is get to a shop and try it.

All the best.

Danny.

 

[nzmacro]

I switched from an OVF to an EVF ... and I like it. Yeah, looking through a 100% viewfinder prism (like I had on my Canon nF-1) is different than an EVF ... but I did not find the transition so bad.
The OVF on my APS-C was dramatically smaller than my nF-1 that it bugged me. The EVF was as large as the Canon.
Having live feedback through the viewfinder on exposure (and white balance) is great ... actually I no longer think about how much exposure to set, just eyeball it and it is very accurate (though I do not do a lot of very low light shooting). The Sony A57 only has a 1.4M dot EVF, while the A7r has a 2.4M so it should look better than what I see.

I would switch over if I was not shooting wildlife ... actually, I may just upgrade my NEX-3 to a 7 just as a carry around/backup camera.

I shoot mainly wildlife and plenty of BIF's with a NEX-7, If I had a Canon 1DX, that would be the backup to the NEX-7

All the best.

Danny.

 

[jaomul]

I sold all my Canon gear and bought a m4/3rds EPL5. It is great and small. Picture quality was never am issue and I'm sure the Sony A7 is superior, but you mention birds and wildlife as something you like, I think the Sony May disappoint here but only from what I read and my experience with mirrorless.

I re-bought into the dslr side of things again and now have the olly and a d7100. The dslr is a better option if you want a more flexible camera in my opinion. Also as mentioned fullframe mirrorless equals fullframe lenses.

The olly EM1 or Fugi xt1 seem to tick the boxes for size and focus but from your post I think you need/want fullframe

 

[ann]

I began using a pen years ago for my point and shoot camera.

Since that time , I slowly began to change , and now I use an OMD-E1 have sold all my Nikon equipment including a d700 and haven't looked back.

My body feels a lot better at the end of the day, and since I rarely print larger than 11x14 I haven't lost quality

 

[sonicbuffalo]

I have both a Nikon D7100 and just recently bought a full frame D610. I considered the Sony mirrorless A7, and because it is almost as large as a DSLR, and the lenses are almost as large, and more expensive overall, I decided to stick with Nikon. I am looking to sell the D7100 and a 18-140 mm lens, and will keep the D610. I will really miss the D7100 and it only has about 250 clicks on it. It is practically brand new and I recently shot an auto show of clssic cars in Wilmington, NC. The photos I got with the 14-24 f/2.8 lens was incredible. I really want to use the D7100 to shoot the Northeast's Largest Car Show in late July. If I get the right price, I might go ahead and sell it though.

 

[sashbar]

An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.

Joe

Why do you think so?
I think EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF.

 

[Derrel]

An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.

Joe

Why do you think so?
I think EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF.

Been hearing that for a decade now... "EVF will 'soon' be superior to OVF." The idea that ANY EVF will soon be vastly superior to any OVF is...pretty optimistic I think. EVFs have lag...not a lot in the case of the best, but enough that critically-timing images with an EVF comes down to anticipating what you HOPE will happen; with an optical viewfinder, you are actually seeing what is occurring in real time. And...there's none of that crappy video-y look that EVF's are plagued with.

 

[gsgary]

An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.

Joe

Why do you think so?
I think EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF.

Been hearing that for a decade now... "EVF will 'soon' be superior to OVF." The idea that ANY EVF will soon be vastly superior to any OVF is...pretty optimistic I think. EVFs have lag...not a lot in the case of the best, but enough that critically-timing images with an EVF comes down to anticipating what you HOPE will happen; with an optical viewfinder, you are actually seeing what is occurring in real time. And...there's none of that crappy video-y look that EVF's are plagued with.

Yeh timing is impossible with the A7

 

[Derrel]

One, or two frames out of a day's shooting doesn't magically change the fact that ANY EVF has "some" lag, while an OVF is working at the speed of light.

EVF's are getting better, yes, but for example, the Sony A7's EVF is what really put me off from actually pulling out my credit card and buying it. The camera body itself is reallllly neat, and the lenses-on-adapters possibilities for the A7 and A7r were really intriguing, but I could not clearly see the FACE of a man standing 6 feet away through the EVF...not well enough to judge the expression to know whether to shoot, or not shoot. To me, it's the difference between "learning how to compensate": for a poor viewfinder image, versus actually being able to SEE, at the speed of light, exactly what the subject is doing in real-time. Still, the A7 series is nifty technology. I can understand why people like it, despite the current lack of AF lenses for it.

A really honest discussion of the pluses and minuses of the EVF versus OVF is kind of beyond the scope of this forum, but the information is out there. Still, there are a lot of nifty mirrorless cams out there. This weekend at the seashore I was asked to take some photos of a man and his wife with his Olympus PEN EP-5, which we talked about afte the session; that camera is ALMOST EXACTLY the same height and width as my iPhone. A little bit "deeper" though, front to back, but still a VERY small body, and the 14-42mm zoom was also very small. I realllly liked the SIZE of the Pen EP-5 and 14-42mm zoom! Sooooo small!!!! Soooo light!!!!

The rear LCD on that small Olympus was decent, even on a fairly bright beach. To me, THAT's the size that makes a mirrorless a go-anywhere type camera. I deliberately left my big Nikon and its various lenses at home, and carried just an iPhone, so I could enjoy the beach experience with my son. And I did get some decent photos, but still...I think photographically, the "real" mirrorless cameras might be a better choice for more-serious photos. I feel like I could have done better photos with that Oly EP-5 and 14-42mm zoom than with my iPhone 4. There are a lot of neat cameras on the market; Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, Samsung...they all have some nifty offerings. I just think the Sony A7 is NOT really going to be a carry-everywhere camera because....when they DO get the lenses out for it...those lenses will still need to be lenses for full-frame 24x36 coverage; iof I wanted a go-everywhere rig, I would look more at the really compact bodies with the really compact lenses. If I wanted a carryable, go-anywhere, interchangeable lens camera, I would not really WANT a full-frame sensor in it for my zoom or tele needs. Fuji's idea of APS-C sensor size, with a single, like 23mm lens makes some sense, but I really think the smaller bodied mirrorless models would be easier to carry than an A7 full-frame mirrorless.

 

[gsgary]

Yeah...one or two frames out of a hundred makes the point.I could shoot something slow like horse jumping with anything

Enough with the meaningless examples. How about introducing a real discussion? The OVF Versus EVF Debate | byThom | Thom Hogan

EVF still has issues. The A7's viewfinder image is pretty sucky compared against what I see through my full-frame Nikon's viewfinder.

And the Nikon sucks compared to the Leica rangefinder

 

[Ysarex]

An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.

Joe

Why do you think so?
I think EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF.

Been hearing that for a decade now... "EVF will 'soon' be superior to OVF." The idea that ANY EVF will soon be vastly superior to any OVF is...pretty optimistic I think. EVFs have lag...not a lot in the case of the best, but enough that critically-timing images with an EVF comes down to anticipating what you HOPE will happen; with an optical viewfinder, you are actually seeing what is occurring in real time. And...there's none of that crappy video-y look that EVF's are plagued with.

:thumbup: Yes! And there's more. No matter how fast it gets and how clear it gets the EVF isn't "showing" the scene you're about to photograph. The EVF is a software generated interpretation of the scene. You'll encounter some people actually claim that they like the fact that the EVF shows them the exposure they're about to take.

That's a big reason I don't want to see the EVF image. I want to SEE what I'm about to photograph -- not a representation of what I'm about to photograph. There is a difference. I'm the photographer, not the software in the camera.

All that said humans are very adaptable critters and I've been using a Fuji X-E2 now since November. I'm happy with the swap I made and I'm doing OK with the EVF. The overall reduction in size and weight of the camera (due largely to the removal of the mirror and OVF) tips the scale for me, but I made a compromise and the loss of the OVF is the biggest loss.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

To me, the quality of a camera's viewfinder system has always, always been a critical aspect of the camera; the better the viewfinder image, the more-usable the viewfinder, the BETTER THE PHOTOS TURN OUT. It's really that simple, and that has been a fundamental issue since cameras evolved to being moved off of their tripods, and into hand-held use.

Last week, I was asked by a family to take a group photo of them; the mom handed me her Nikon D3000 with 18-55 kit lens. O-M-G...the view through the finder was sooooo small that it was very challenging for me to shoot... I literally could NOT see their faces. they had two little kids, both "holdable" aged...I framed the shot, a bit loose, and pressed the shutter halfway, and then fired by looking over the top of the hotshoe, AT THEM, so I could literally "see" when the right time to shoot was. I mean, my gosh...the D3000 had an awful viewfinder image with an f/3.5~5.6 lens on it. The view through the viewfinder to me appeared "grainy", dim, and...awful. I took three shots, two wides, and a tall. They were at Crown Point's Vista House.

I want to be able to SEE what my subject(s) is/are actually doing, real-time.

 

[sashbar]

Why do you think so?
I think EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF.

Been hearing that for a decade now... "EVF will 'soon' be superior to OVF." The idea that ANY EVF will soon be vastly superior to any OVF is...pretty optimistic I think. EVFs have lag...not a lot in the case of the best, but enough that critically-timing images with an EVF comes down to anticipating what you HOPE will happen; with an optical viewfinder, you are actually seeing what is occurring in real time. And...there's none of that crappy video-y look that EVF's are plagued with.

:thumbup: Yes! And there's more. No matter how fast it gets and how clear it gets the EVF isn't "showing" the scene you're about to photograph. The EVF is a software generated interpretation of the scene. You'll encounter some people actually claim that they like the fact that the EVF shows them the exposure they're about to take.

That's a big reason I don't want to see the EVF image. I want to SEE what I'm about to photograph -- not a representation of what I'm about to photograph. There is a difference. I'm the photographer, not the software in the camera.

All that said humans are very adaptable critters and I've been using a Fuji X-E2 now since November. I'm happy with the swap I made and I'm doing OK with the EVF. The overall reduction in size and weight of the camera (due largely to the removal of the mirror and OVF) tips the scale for me, but I made a compromise and the loss of the OVF is the biggest loss.

Joe

I Am optimistic I checked XT-1 EVF and it comes close, I give it another 5 years - and I am pretty sure there will be no noticeable lag at all and no video-y look. And you could see the the representation of an image AND with one click - what you are going to photograph, and it will be of top quality. And you will be able to see in low light and magnification at will and a lot of other extras.. As soon as they start to sell pro grade mirror less, the progress will accelerate. One of the reasons for the lack of processor power i is the fact that there is one processor doing everything. Why not adding a separate processor exclusively for the viewfinder? Never mind newer, faster chips. This all about processing speed. One can delay it, but it is just a matter of time, the writing is on the wall