From DSLR to Mirrorless?

[ac12]

You really think the ML crowd is vocal?

We have one member who constantly trumpets the mirrorless idea, and his handle is the same as Darwin's ship...

HMS Beagle?

Battery life may be a real issue if you’re doing it pro. Photography is a hobby for me so I seldom do more than a couple hundred shots at a time. The only time I’ve run out of battery is doing time lapse shots but if you’re switching and doing it pro, you may want to have several extras.

You really think the ML crowd is vocal?

We have one member who constantly trumpets the mirrorless idea, and his handle is the same as Darwin's ship...

HMS Beagle?

Battery life may be a real issue if you’re doing it pro. Photography is a hobby for me so I seldom do more than a couple hundred shots at a time. The only time I’ve run out of battery is doing time lapse shots but if you’re switching and doing it pro, you may want to have several extras.

In my experience, it is not the number of shots, but the "power on" time that determines battery life on a mirrorless camera.

You really think the ML crowd is vocal?

We have one member who constantly trumpets the mirrorless idea, and his handle is the same as Darwin's ship...

HMS Beagle?

Battery life may be a real issue if you’re doing it pro. Photography is a hobby for me so I seldom do more than a couple hundred shots at a time. The only time I’ve run out of battery is doing time lapse shots but if you’re switching and doing it pro, you may want to have several extras.

In my experience, it is not the number of shots, but the "power on" time that determines battery life on a mirrorless camera.

Probably. I’m sure the rear lcd takes a good amount of power. Even when that’s off the evf is running. Ive wondered too about auto focus and changing aperture a bunch since those are mechanical functions.

The AF on the larger pro lenses probably take more power to run (more mass to move to focus), than the AF on the smaller consumer lenses.

I think a major power sucker is the active sensor.

Yes, battery and viewfinder lag time are probably the two biggest performance differences between D-slr and mirrorless cameras. The difference between having a camera that needs five batteries to cover a 3 and 3/4 hour football game and ONE charge on ONE battery to do a whole weekend is why the majority of professional sports shooters still shoot "dinosaur" d-slrs from Canon and Nikon.

Agree, I use my dSLR D7200 for fast sports, where my mirrorless Olympus OM1 does not do the job. In fact it was sometimes quite frustrating to use.
I TRIED really hard to use the mirrorless for sports, but I gave up and kept using the dSLR for fast sports.

 

[CdTSnap]

I’d get the Fuji if you have to get an A72, the A72 is nothing like the latest gen cameras you don’t get proper eye focus, limited low light performance etc. the Fuji would be awesome (and yeah im a Sony shooter)

 

[beagle100]

You really think the ML crowd is vocal?

We have one member who constantly trumpets the mirrorless idea, and his handle is the same as Darwin's ship...

HMS Beagle?

Battery life may be a real issue if you’re doing it pro. Photography is a hobby for me so I seldom do more than a couple hundred shots at a time. The only time I’ve run out of battery is doing time lapse shots but if you’re switching and doing it pro, you may want to have several extras.

You really think the ML crowd is vocal?
...

HMS Beagle?

Battery life may be a real issue if you’re doing it pro. Photography is a hobby for me so I seldom do more than a couple hundred shots at a time. The only time I’ve run out of battery is doing time lapse shots but if you’re switching and doing it pro, you may want to have several extras.

In my experience, it is not the number of shots, but the "power on" time that determines battery life on a mirrorless camera.

You really think the ML crowd is vocal?

We have one member who constantly trumpets the mirrorless idea, and his handle is the same as Darwin's ship...

Battery life may be a real issue if you’re doing it pro. Photography is a hobby for me so I seldom do more than a couple hundred shots at a time. The only time I’ve run out of battery is doing time lapse shots but if you’re switching and doing it pro, you may want to have several extras.

In my experience, it is not the number of shots, but the "power on" time that determines battery life on a mirrorless camera.

Probably. I’m sure the rear lcd takes a good amount of power. Even when that’s off the evf is running. Ive wondered too about auto focus and changing aperture a bunch since those are mechanical functions.

The AF on the larger pro lenses probably take more power to run (more mass to move to focus), than the AF on the smaller consumer lenses.

I think a major power sucker is the active sensor.

Yes, battery and viewfinder lag time are probably the two biggest performance differences between D-slr and mirrorless cameras. The difference between having a camera that needs five batteries to cover a 3 and 3/4 hour football game and ONE charge on ONE battery to do a whole weekend is why the majority of professional sports shooters still shoot "dinosaur" d-slrs from Canon and Nikon.

Agree, I use my dSLR D7200 for fast sports, where my mirrorless Olympus OM1 does not do the job. In fact it was sometimes quite frustrating to use.
I TRIED really hard to use the mirrorless for sports, but I gave up and kept using the dSLR for fast sports.

perhaps it's the mirrorless camera ... or how fast the sports
Untitled by c w, on Flickr

 

[ac12]

You really think the ML crowd is vocal?

We have one member who constantly trumpets the mirrorless idea, and his handle is the same as Darwin's ship...

HMS Beagle?

Battery life may be a real issue if you’re doing it pro. Photography is a hobby for me so I seldom do more than a couple hundred shots at a time. The only time I’ve run out of battery is doing time lapse shots but if you’re switching and doing it pro, you may want to have several extras.

You really think the ML crowd is vocal?
...

HMS Beagle?

Battery life may be a real issue if you’re doing it pro. Photography is a hobby for me so I seldom do more than a couple hundred shots at a time. The only time I’ve run out of battery is doing time lapse shots but if you’re switching and doing it pro, you may want to have several extras.

In my experience, it is not the number of shots, but the "power on" time that determines battery life on a mirrorless camera.

Battery life may be a real issue if you’re doing it pro. Photography is a hobby for me so I seldom do more than a couple hundred shots at a time. The only time I’ve run out of battery is doing time lapse shots but if you’re switching and doing it pro, you may want to have several extras.

In my experience, it is not the number of shots, but the "power on" time that determines battery life on a mirrorless camera.

Probably. I’m sure the rear lcd takes a good amount of power. Even when that’s off the evf is running. Ive wondered too about auto focus and changing aperture a bunch since those are mechanical functions.

The AF on the larger pro lenses probably take more power to run (more mass to move to focus), than the AF on the smaller consumer lenses.

I think a major power sucker is the active sensor.

Yes, battery and viewfinder lag time are probably the two biggest performance differences between D-slr and mirrorless cameras. The difference between having a camera that needs five batteries to cover a 3 and 3/4 hour football game and ONE charge on ONE battery to do a whole weekend is why the majority of professional sports shooters still shoot "dinosaur" d-slrs from Canon and Nikon.

Agree, I use my dSLR D7200 for fast sports, where my mirrorless Olympus OM1 does not do the job. In fact it was sometimes quite frustrating to use.
I TRIED really hard to use the mirrorless for sports, but I gave up and kept using the dSLR for fast sports.

perhaps it's the mirrorless camera ... or how fast the sportsUntitled by c w, on Flickr

BOTH
Camera is Olympus EM1-mk1
Sport are gym (basketball and volleyball) and field (football, soccer and lacrosse).

The issue is not with the EM1-mk1 not getting the shot. Getting the shot is easy.
It is the follow up where the problem is. The EVF freezes the last image in a burst, for a fraction of a second. But that fraction of a second is long enough to cause me to loose tracking of the fast moving players. While the EVF is frozen, I am literally aiming the camera blind, until the EVF goes live again. If I am lucky, I am aiming close to the subject, if not, I am WAY off.

 

[Solarflare]

[...] IMHO, Fujinon lenses, especially the "Fujinon" primes(16/23/35/50mm) are bargains and the real reason to buy into the system. [...]

Well these lenses are called Fujicrons, after the name Leica gives to their f2 lenses, the Summicrons. The 16mm is only f2.8 though. Its still considered a Fujicron by many now, since its also a very compact prime lens.

And I disagree that the Fujicrons are the "real reason to buy into this system". If I would get a Fujifilm X, personally I wouldnt actually get a single Fujicron. Yes they're great, but theres plenty of amazing Fujifilm X lenses, and my choices would be other lenses.

 

[cgw]

[...] IMHO, Fujinon lenses, especially the "Fujinon" primes(16/23/35/50mm) are bargains and the real reason to buy into the system. [...]

Well these lenses are called Fujicrons, after the name Leica gives to their f2 lenses, the Summicrons. The 16mm is only f2.8 though. Its still considered a Fujicron by many now, since its also a very compact prime lens.

And I disagree that the Fujicrons are the "real reason to buy into this system". If I would get a Fujifilm X, personally I wouldnt actually get a single Fujicron. Yes they're great, but theres plenty of amazing Fujifilm X lenses, and my choices would be other lenses.

Pardon the typo, chief. The Fujicron price/quality quotient is THE selling point. Is the 16/1.4 really that noticeably “better”?Many say no. But then my opinion, like yours, is irrelevant. I update Fuji bodies with NOS trailing edge models benched by new stock. I’ll never pay full freight for a Fuji body but will shell out for Fujinon glass which rarely hits the used market relative to their cameras. YMMV, as usual.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Technically, the Sony is probably better. ...but if you're in this for the fun and not the money, I'd go with Fuji. Everyone loves their out-of-camera JPGs, (saves post-processing work later) they look nice, feel nice and are fun to use. Quality is good, as well. Menu system in Sonys are often criticized.

If you don't mind their menus and you're a business-type photographer, go with the Sony. Their Zeiss lenses and electronics are absolutely top-of-the-line.