DSLR vs Mirror-Less ???

[Gavjenks]

ill be until all these alleged advantages suddenly convince manufacturers to devote more energy to making cameras that so far, DO NOT SELL worth a DAMN?

They don't sell because they aren't better cameras yet.

Like I said in my posts, if you were to be so inclined as to read them, it requires sufficient advances in sensor-based autofocus technology, and sufficiently low lag in seeing your framing on the LCD compared to when you move the camera (needs to be fast enough to barely notice lag).

Prior to these things being solved and implemented, I would not buy a mirrorless camera. After they have been solved, I will be first in line to buy a mirrorless camera, as would many others. Why wouldn't you? All advantages and no remaining drawbacks at that point.

Yeah...I heard the same refrain three years ago: "Mirrorless will come to dominate the entire camera market--and really soon too. Because it's smaller, and the image quality is close to what an APS-C camera can do. As long as the ISO levels are at 400 or lower. And the light level is high enough, like EV 11 or brighter." Yadda,yadda,yadda.

This sounds like a quote referring to micro 4/3 in particular, not the concept of mirrorless cameras in general.

There is no reason why mirrorless cameras could not have FULL FRAME (or even medium format) sensors, or any other sensor that a DSLR can have.

So it is a bizarre and misleading argument to say "image quality is almost as good" or "as long as it's ISO 400 or lower." No. Image quality would be literally exactly as good, because you could put the exact same sensor into the mirrorless camera. And ISO 12,800 would be fine if that were a current gen full frame sensor, for instance.

The fact that you don't have a mirror has nothing to do with how large of a sensor you can put in.

 

[Ysarex88 82]

....Will we see professionals shooting weddings with these things? Wouldn’t that look silly? Just saying…

Back when I and everyone I knew shooting weddings were using one of these,

we thought it was hilariously silly to see someone trying to shoot a wedding with a dinky little 35mm camera. Just saying...

Joe

 

[Gavjenks]

True ^

The other day, I was in a creek bed in a public park area under a foot bridge setting up a shot with my Shen Hao 4x5 field camera, and some really old dude stopped and looked over the railing of the bridge and struck up a conversation with me about how he used to shoot weddings with 4x5 field cameras! He seemed old enough that he may very well have professionally predated crown graphics.



And he even said something that I can essentially paraphrase as "the young whippersnappers with their medium formats always used to try and run circles around us, but the quality wasn't the same."

He also bragged about how he had made his own 5x7 camera from scratch and seemed disappointed that mine was commercially bought. I tried to bring up my concept for a 4x5 roll film camera, but I don't think he was understanding me.

 

[erotavlas]

I don't think mirrorless is a 'trend' I think its a natural evolution of where camera technology is headed. Much like the transition from film to digital. I think one day there will be fewer and fewer SLR cameras. The only reason DSLR dominate professional world today is they have more software support, more interface options more accessories, more lenses etc. So there are some things you can do with DSLR that you can't do with mirror less, but only for now. Mirrorless cameras will eventually catch up and I can totally see them as being used as a professional tool, especially when you look at those that have sensor equivalent to DSLR size APSC (Sont Nex for example).

I love my Sony NEX and wouldn't trade it for a DSLR, it does everything I need, produces amazing images, and its more compact/lightweight.

 

[usayit]

Why do we care so much about what other people shoot with?

If it fits... get a DSLR

If it doesn't... explore other options that may or may not "fit better".

It is as simple as that.


My mirror-less cameras (MFT and Leica M) provide the ideal packaging (size, weight) and experience required to enjoy photography and life in parallel. My current system is literally 1/3rd (at most) of the weight and size of my Canon (1dMII, 5d, 4 L primes, 4 L zooms). Next time I carry that much weight to shoot, it will be for a paid job.


In due time, the old mirrorbox design will become obsolete and replaced with something superior that provides a better shooting experience. No different from SLR design challenging (and eventually replacing) TLR and view cameras. It was not that long ago (around the time of the Korean war) that people laughed at the "toy" 135 format (as Ysarex eluded too). IMO, its a natural progression.

NOTE: I didn't say it would be replaced with current mirror-less designs although I think many of them are pretty darn close.

 

[shadowlands]

My thing is this... if a larger DLSR and smaller mirror-less performed the same, I'd still take the DSLR. I like the build, heft, feel, etc... I like the "I'm serious" look that it provides, etc..
That may be dumb on my part, but it's true. I love the beefy grip of my current camera compared to the smaller, more plastic-like DSLR's I owned before my current.
When I want to be smaller, I remove my battery grip and toss on a prime.
That's just me. And yes, I still dream of a D3 or D4 one day. I'd honestly like the size/build/heft.

 

[goodguy]

Why do we care so much about what other people shoot with?

If it fits... get a DSLR

If it doesn't... explore other options that may or may not "fit better".

It is as simple as that.

What really worries me personally about the question of Mirrorless vs DSLR is the money I invest in glass.
What happeneds if in time the market will move to mirrorless, what will I do with my lenses.
What if I decide to invest in pro lenses and find myself in 4-5 years my lenses are obsolete ?
If I was rich then not a big deal but moving to pro lenses is a big step to any hobyist, find myself loosing potentially thousants of dollars on outdated gear is not an option for me.
I assume there will be converters matching "old pro lenses" to a Mirorless camera but I am not a big fan of hybrids, rather have lens that ared esigned to work on original body.

 

[Solarflare]

I have a D600 now for all general stuff.

I might get a X100s in the future for "social" photography (small, unobtrusive, near silent, great IQ, can handle almost any light, also great with flash).

Will we see professionals shooting weddings with these things? Wouldn’t that look silly? Just saying…

I dont see why one cant do Weddings with MILCs. Heck, one could do them with Leica M, with manual focusing only. Its not like people would be running around at full speed or anything.

What if I decide to invest in pro lenses and find myself in 4-5 years my lenses are obsolete ?

You will be able to still use those with adapters.

 

[goodguy]

I have a D600 now for all general stuff.

What if I decide to invest in pro lenses and find myself in 4-5 years my lenses are obsolete ?

You will be able to still use those with adapters.

As I said in my comment I am not a big fan of converters which I meant adapters (sorry English second language).
Rather then find a solution to a problem I rather avoid the problem at the first place.
I think right now is the prefect time to sit on the fence and wait.
Being just a hobyist owning a mid range lenses as I do right now is just perfect, once I feel the market has swang one place or to the other I might consider moving to a better glass (assuming I will be able to afford it) till then as I said I will sit on the fence.

 

[sashbar]

So it is a bizarre and misleading argument to say "image quality is almost as good" or "as long as it's ISO 400 or lower." No. Image quality would be literally exactly as good, because you could put the exact same sensor into the mirrorless camera.

Probably even better with the same sensor, because of the shorter distance between the lense and the sensor.

 

[Gavjenks]

Why do we care so much about what other people shoot with?

If it fits... get a DSLR

If it doesn't... explore other options that may or may not "fit better".

It is as simple as that.

What really worries me personally about the question of Mirrorless vs DSLR is the money I invest in glass.
What happeneds if in time the market will move to mirrorless, what will I do with my lenses.
What if I decide to invest in pro lenses and find myself in 4-5 years my lenses are obsolete ?
If I was rich then not a big deal but moving to pro lenses is a big step to any hobyist, find myself loosing potentially thousants of dollars on outdated gear is not an option for me.
I assume there will be converters matching "old pro lenses" to a Mirorless camera but I am not a big fan of hybrids, rather have lens that ared esigned to work on original body.

You can still use the same glass on a mirrorless camera. You simply need a cheap adapter similar to an extension tube to take up the space between where the mirrorless flange is and where the other flange would be. Would cost at most $30 from a third party vendor. These already exist for almost all mirrorless brands to adapt to almost all major company lenses (usually with electronic communication if it's the same brand on both ends).

They would make NEW lenses that only work with mirrorless, yes, but the old glass would still be compatible.

 

[Gavjenks]

My thing is this... if a larger DLSR and smaller mirror-less performed the same, I'd still take the DSLR. I like the build, heft, feel, etc... I like the "I'm serious" look that it provides, etc..
That may be dumb on my part, but it's true. I love the beefy grip of my current camera compared to the smaller, more plastic-like DSLR's I owned before my current.
When I want to be smaller, I remove my battery grip and toss on a prime.
That's just me. And yes, I still dream of a D3 or D4 one day. I'd honestly like the size/build/heft.

There's absolutely no reason why a mirrorless camera cannot have bulk and heft. They could easily manufacture one that had just as big of a body (with a lot of empty air inside) and weight, just to make people like you happy.

You would still want it to be a mirrorless though, because mirrorless is optically better due to requiring simpler wide angle lens designs that have fewer flaws (the lens mount and sensor would be very close together, even though the body might be unnecessarily bulky to make the customer happy)

 

[shadowlands]

The issue with the weight and lugging around a DSLR... that's never bothered me.
Hell, my wife and I did a big hike in Maui with all of our stuff. At the time I had a gripped D300 with 17-55 f2.8, and the 80-200 f2.8 in my sling. She would even carry it for long stretches, and she's just over 100 pounds.
We didn't complain. And she hiked up Diamond Head carrying our then 20 pound toddler.
Come on guys.....

 

[Ysarex88 82]

So it is a bizarre and misleading argument to say "image quality is almost as good" or "as long as it's ISO 400 or lower." No. Image quality would be literally exactly as good, because you could put the exact same sensor into the mirrorless camera.

Probably even better with the same sensor, because of the shorter distance between the lense and the sensor.

:thumbup:

Yep, mirrorless offers a real advantage in that it get's rid of the mirror. The mirror in an SLR is physically in the way and so prevents the lens designer from designing the best possible wide angle lenses. A wideangle lens for an SLR has to be designed to clear the mirror movement and that compromise means that all SLR wideangle lenses basically suck when compared with their counterparts on say a rangefinder. The Leica M 28mm f/2 Summicron is famous for a reason. Likewise the 28mm f/2.8 Biogon that used to sell with the Contax G series cameras. No SLR has ever been fitted with their equal.

Fuji is now shipping their 14mm f/2.8 for the X-Pro. Odds are it will best every similar focal length lens on every APS size sensor DSLR on the market.

Joe

 

[goodguy]

:thumbup:

Yep, mirrorless offers a real advantage in that it get's rid of the mirror. The mirror in an SLR is physically in the way and so prevents the lens designer from designing the best possible wide angle lenses. A wideangle lens for an SLR has to be designed to clear the mirror movement and that compromise means that all SLR wideangle lenses basically suck when compared with their counterparts on say a rangefinder. The Leica M 28mm f/2 Summicron is famous for a reason. Likewise the 28mm f/2.8 Biogon that used to sell with the Contax G series cameras. No SLR has ever been fitted with their equal.

Fuji is now shipping their 14mm f/2.8 for the X-Pro. Odds are it will best every similar focal length lens on every APS size sensor DSLR on the market.

Joe

Which just makes my case stronger, right now for DSLR hobyist its not the time to upgrade for very expensive pro lenses.
Best sit this one out wait for the tide of change take its course and once the camera market has stabalized then it will be time to make the move for the best body+lens.
Its silly to stick to old tech lenses (as good as they are) if new lenses will make better use of new technology.
You simply dont know, I am in a waiting mode right now and will see if DSLR will continuing to rain supreme or will it be overthrown by the Mirrorless.