Blind spot on the discussions of mirrorless cameras

[The_Traveler]

I admit I don't understand the reasoning of those who can't wait for mirror-less cameras that take standard size lenses with adapters.

For me, the beauty of m 4/3 is that the body is small, the lenses are small and everything is light, maneuverable and inconspicuous. That's the tradeoff for a marginally lower ultimate IQ.

There seems to be only a minor plus in having a small body if one has to schlep big heavy lenses.
So all one is getting for the loss in image quality is an only slightly less heavy camera bag and relatively unbalanced setup to hold - sort of the Pamela Anderson of camera setups

There must be something I'm missing.

 

[brunerww]

From the tiny Pentax Q and Panasonic GM1 - all the way up to the GH3 and Alpha A7r, there will be buyers for "mirrorless" cameras - whether their lenses are smaller than DSLRs or not.

In my view, mirrorless cameras are not necessarily "compact system cameras", they are simply 21st century solid state cameras that have dispensed with a 20th century mechanical contraption that breaks, wears out, and worst of all, blocks the sensor.

Best,

Bill

 

[The_Traveler]

Sure, but that doesn't bring any light to the question I asked.

 

[dsiglin]

Some of the lenses adapted are smaller than native lenses. Lighter? Not normally due to the lenses mostly being from the age of metal. But really the main advantage to me is the ability to use some of the best lenses EVER MADE. In my view it's the lens not the camera I build my system around. If Canon or Nikon came out with a compelling mirrorless camera I'd definitely consider it.

 

[sashbar]

I admit I don't understand the reasoning of those who can't wait for mirror-less cameras that take standard size lenses with adapters.

For me, the beauty of m 4/3 is that the body is small, the lenses are small and everything is light, maneuverable and inconspicuous. That's the tradeoff for a marginally lower ultimate IQ.

There seems to be only a minor plus in having a small body if one has to schlep big heavy lenses.
So all one is getting for the loss in image quality is an only slightly less heavy camera bag and relatively unbalanced setup to hold - sort of the Pamela Anderson of camera setups

There must be something I'm missing.

I do not know much about many mirrorless cameras, but if we take FUJI X-E1 - you can use it with 18 mm pancake lense, and it fits in your pocket nicely. 35 mm lense, which is rather small, looks perfect on this body. You really do not need a bag for this as well. Then you always can switch to a "walking" (incredibly high quality and fast) zoom or a professional level portrait 60 mm lense if needed. Or a 55-200 tele. You just have freedom to choose between Pamela Anderson and Kate Moss. And there is no loss of image quality compared to any cropped DSLR. Many owners, who have switched from DSLRs, would say the IQ is BETTER than any current cropped DSLR. I can not vouch for that, but why there should not be a better quality? Theoretically a camera with the same sensor size/quality, no mirror, shorter distance between the lense and the sensor will indeed have a better IQ. There are pros that are using this little camera in a studio! I doubt any pro would consider a 4/3 camera for portraits.
So there are less tradeoffs than it seems.
With 4/3 - yes, one has to consider some tradeoffs incl. high ISO IQ and DoF control, simply because the sensor is small and as we know size matters. But because of that it is indeed much more compact and better for some kinds of photography.
I would say 4/3 is a different class of a camera, compared to DSLR. Mirrorless, if it has the same sensor size is the same class as DSRLs with a different kind of a viewfinder and (not nesessary) smaller size.

 

[pixmedic]

you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to your question Lew. :mrgreen:

The only reason I can think of would be if you had a full DSLR system, and you got a mirrorless camera that you could use your existing DSLR lenses on with an adapter, you would have the versatility of being able to use not only whatever lenses were available for the mirrorless system, but also lenses from your DSLR system that might not be available for the mirrorless.

why you would not just use the DSLR if you wanted to use those lenses, i have no idea.
personally, I would not buy a mirrorless because of an adapter. i would buy a mirrorless system that already has the lenses i want available for it.
i suppose being able to adapt lenses might be a bonus, but if i was going to drag out my DSLR lenses, i might as well drag out the DSLR as well.

 

[amolitor]

I think it's just that mirrorless is better and more modern, or something? One you OWN one, which you bought for whatever reason, I can see that adapting such ans such a lens would have some appeal.

Mirrorless cameras do permit pretty much any lens to be adapted, because the lack of mirror box means that the distance from the mount to the sensor can be very short. Some people buy mirrorless specifically so they can mount a variety of lenses. Quite a few more people buy mirrorless because they are attracted to idea of being able to, but will never actually get around to it.

 

[The_Traveler]

There are pros that are using this little camera in a studio! I doubt any pro would consider a 4/3 camera for portraits.

Perhaps not studio work where the size has no advantage and IQ is king but many are using it for PJ and wedding stuff.

The Wedding of Josh & Amber (select shots taken with the iPhone) | Jerry Ghionis Blog

How to overcome fears using Micro 4/3rds cameras in a professional environment - Small Camera BIG Picture

A "Pro" wedding shot with the help of micro 4/3 - Micro Four Thirds User Forum

 

[dsiglin]

Rereading your opening post, Lew, you mention mirrorless but then talk about m4/3. There's a tradeoff in image quality with m4/3 but with APS-C mirrorless cameras (and especially the FF ones coming out) there's no loss. I will say that mirrorless cameras tend to have weaker batteries than a DSLR. Size constraints are the issue there.

Btw, if you were someone who had invested in Minolta AF lenses and then later Sony A system you can get an adapter that lets you use those lenses with phase-detection AF. The Minolta 50mm 1.7 is still a small package even with the necessary adapter.

 

[amolitor]

I find it hilarious that the conventional wisdom is that APS-C and 4/3 are "no good" for serious work. This refrain is repeated every time new technology rolls around. Sometimes it's right, and sometimes it's not.

4/3 sensors and APS-C sensors are just fine for virtually any application. There are specialized corner cases where you truly do need more resolution, but in those cases you're as likely to be forced to medium or large format as to full frame. There's nothing magic about full-frame, it just happens to be the current "expensive but still attainable" candidate, so everyone treats it as the ultimate format. 4x5 is unmanageable, medium format digital is too expensive, but I can save up and afford a full frame camera. THEREFORE full frame is the best possible format.

Nonsense.

The short flange distance is the interesting bit of technology mirrorless brings, the rest is just emotion.

 

[sashbar]

There are pros that are using this little camera in a studio! I doubt any pro would consider a 4/3 camera for portraits.

Perhaps not studio work where the size has no advantage and IQ is king but many are using it for PJ and wedding stuff.

The Wedding of Josh & Amber (select shots taken with the iPhone) | Jerry Ghionis Blog

How to overcome fears using Micro 4/3rds cameras in a professional environment - Small Camera BIG Picture

A "Pro" wedding shot with the help of micro 4/3 - Micro Four Thirds User Forum

I take that sentense back :hail: Some impressive images there. Who would have thought..

 

[dsiglin]

Well the main IQ "problems" for m4/3 sensors is a lower ISO ceiling and a smaller dynamic/tonal range.

 

[gsgary]

UK pro damien Lovegrove uses an X pro1 for most of his work Creative and business resources for Photographers

 

[sleist]

It could be a money thing for some people. Buy a body first with a kit zoom and an adapter so you can use your other lenses while you slowly add glass or evaluate the system as a whole.
I'd like M43 as a lighter weight addition to my DX and FX systems, as opposed to a replacement (at this point). Building a system to match my current glass would be pricy though and has been an obstacle for me.
That being said, I think I would get more for $1800 (from an increased options perspective) if I invested in M43 and glass, than say buying the new Nikor 58mm f/1.4.

 

[The_Traveler]

Good glass isn't cheap in m43; not as expensive as Nikon but not cheap

best 12-35 and 35-100 glass (24-70, 70-200 equivalent), in the $1200
gooooood primes are much, much cheaper - 300-500