Debunking The Mirrorless Hype (Article)

[nerwin]

I've know there has been a lot of discussions here about switching to mirrorless or not and PhotographyLife wrote this article that I thought was relevant and quite interesting (with fancy graphs). Have a read.

Debunking The Mirrorless Hype

 

[Designer]

Does this OP fall under the "link to off-site article"?

We know you have been a responsible member here, but I thought we were supposed to copy and paste the entire article here instead of posting a link.

 

[waday]

It's not nerwin's article, so I would assume it to be ok? People seem to post links to articles all the time? Also, if I were photographylife, I'd be kinda mad that someone posted the article here taking traffic away from their website when it was their work...

I always thought it was funny that the TPF gods allowed people to post entire articles that were written by others but not allow them to post photos taken by others...

 

[Ysarex]

Completely worthless article. You don't compare two groups by pulling a single unrepresentative example from each group and base a conclusion on only those two items. The intro to statistics you get in a middle school classroom should suffice to make that clear.

For example: There's been a lot of hype lately about men being taller than women. Well I'm here to debunk that for you. Let's do a comparison between a man and a women. Tennis has been in the news lately so lets compare tennis players. For the woman we'll pick Serena Williams and for the man we'll pick David Ferrer. Well would you look at that -- they're both 5'9"! So much for that hype.

Joe

 

[nerwin]

All I wanted to do was spark a conversation, it is a discussion forum after all But if it's illegal, then my bad. I shared articles before and no one seemed to mind, had awesome discussions.

 

[tirediron]

There's nothing wrong with linking to articles as long as they're not yours. The "Post the whole article" rule is intended to prevent people from using TPF as a click-bait repositiory and/or improving their SEO by having off-site links to their blog, etc.

 

[Derrel]

The article can be summarized pretty easily: the Sony A7II (new model with in-body stabilizing system) mirrorless camera has a small handgrip, many of the lenses that fit it and correspond directly to another lens for Nikon FX are as heavy or heavier than d-slr system lens models, and the battery life is an absolutely pathetic 340 frames per charge. Some people find small mirrorless cameras have inadequate size/weight to balanced well with lenses like a 70-200. That is the article in a nutshell. It's basically a Nikon D750 vs Sony A7II comparison., which is fine as far as it goes, but the Sony A7II is not the only mirrorless camera on the market.

 

[nerwin]

The article can be summarized pretty easily: the Sony A7II (new model with in-body stabilizing system) mirrorless camera has a small handgrip, many of the lenses that fit it and correspond directly to another lens for Nikon FX are as heavy or heavier than d-slr system lens models, and the battery life is an absolutely pathetic 340 frames per charge. Some people find small mirrorless cameras have inadequate size/weight to balanced well with lenses like a 70-200. That is the article in a nutshell. It's basically a Nikon D750 vs Sony A7II comparison., which is fine as far as it goes, but the Sony A7II is not the only mirrorless camera on the market.

True that it isn't the only mirrorless on the market, but it's one of the very very few full frame mirrorless cameras on the market. Full frame mirrorless cameras are going to big regardless..the sensors are bigger and bigger lenses. I honestly think he should of compared it to the common mirrorless systems with APS-C or M4/3 sensors as they are FAR more smaller and just generally make more sense...in my opinion of course.

I can put a small prime on my DSLR, it honestly isn't THAT much bigger than a A7 + prime lens.

 

[Derrel]

I understand why he picked the Sony A7...same 24 million pixel FX-sized sensor used by Nikon...but with 11-bit cooked RAW in the Sony and 14-bit TRUE raw or 12-bit compressed or uncompressed RAW options in the Nikons. The A7 series was heralded as the d-slr killer model line when it was introduced, but unfortunately for Sony, the camera never got a whole lot of traction, and they were forced to drop prices substantially, in an effort to get the things off of dealer shelves. I agree with you--it would have made sense to compare d-slr size/weight/accessories across the whole spectrum of mirrorless systems on the market--but the article was simply a clickbait piece. Not that there is anything wrong with clickbait...the web is built upon clickbait articles and provocative headlines. The Olympus lineup, the Panasonic lineup, and the Fuji lineup all have some interesting options, but those were not discussed as part of the mirrorless universe. I'm not faulting you for posting the link to the article...we need stuff to talk about around the crackerbarrel, every day.

 

[astroNikon]

I first looked into Mirrorless when I saw that some could do 40 or 60 fps.
wow .. that would be great in sports and other scientific stuff I like to do. Until I read that it was 60fps with no Focusing between shots - so much for tennis. I still like their attributes of smaller and lighter even with more conservative fps with Focus.

 

[nerwin]

I first looked into Mirrorless when I saw that some could do 40 or 60 fps.
wow .. that would be great in sports and other scientific stuff I like to do. Until I read that it was 60fps with no Focusing between shots - so much for tennis. I still like their attributes of smaller and lighter even with more conservative fps with Focus.

60fps? Isn't that basically video? hahaha.

 

[Gary A.]

It seemed way too arbitrary to me. And Derrel nailed it as simply a comparison of a certain Nikon to a certain Sony. The fact that in his opening comparison of handling he didn't like the Sony was too small for his hands sorta says it all.

This was also a telling remark. "This article is not meant to represent a head-to-head comparison of both cameras across the full range of features and functionality." I guess only the features and functionality he arbitrarily deemed important to support his case. (See Ysarex above.)

It is a page from Ken Rockwell.

 

[Derrel]

It seemed way too arbitrary to me. And Derrel it is simply a comparison of a certain Nikon to a certain Sony. The fact that in his opening comparison of handling he didn't like the Sony was too small for his hands sorta says it all.

This was also a telling remark. "This article is not meant to represent a head-to-head comparison of both cameras across the full range of features and functionality." I guess only the features and functionality he arbitrarily deemed important to support his case. (See Ysarex above.)

Yeah...this is pretty typical for a clickbait article from a website that tends to offer a lot of clickbait pieces...

 

[AlanKlein]

He's comparing full frame DSLR's to full frame mirrorless. His main point is that there's little weight difference if you add in lenses and all the paraphernalia needed with a camera system. Since I don't have either, I have no idea which is better. I do know that I don't have either because I'm really not interested in carrying a bunch of equipment anymore, except when I go out to shoot MF film. Otherwise I stick to P&S and micro 4/3. Mirrorless full frame is tempting until I add up the system weight which is still too much to schlepp around.

 

[Ido]

I first looked into Mirrorless when I saw that some could do 40 or 60 fps.
wow .. that would be great in sports and other scientific stuff I like to do. Until I read that it was 60fps with no Focusing between shots - so much for tennis. I still like their attributes of smaller and lighter even with more conservative fps with Focus.

60fps? Isn't that basically video? hahaha.

Some Nikon 1 cameras can do it in full resolution. I think they still get insane frame rates with autofocus, maybe around 15–20 fps.