I’m with Thom Hogan

[Solarflare]

What negatives besides battery life does mirrorless have?

EVFs have many issues - lag especially in low light, dazzling the user in low light, reduced resolution, reduced dynamic range, problems with artificial light, people with eye issues have trouble using EVFs at all, etc.

Autofocus in low light is still an issue. At least autofocus in decent light no longer is, at least with some companies.

Another substantial problem with all existing mirrorless systems is that many potential strengths arent actually implemented. Except for Fujifilm, really. Maybe also Olympus and Panasonic, I dont pay much attention to Micro Four Thirds.

Also of course many of the "advantages" of mirrorless people talk about are simply made up. For example the main reason mirrorless are smaller is because the sensor is smaller. If that is not the case, what you gain on the camera you lose again with the lens. Except for wide angle lenses, but even in that case not that much.

And no, mirrorless aint WYSIWYG. As a programmer I know exactly what WYSIWYG is and mirrorless aint it. I found out that people who claim otherwise actually have no clue what WYSIWYG even means. Yes of course mirrorless have more freedom to display information - but thats not what WYSIWYG is !


In the sum what I want is a SLR that can have an EVF enabled whenever the advantages of the EVF are needed, but usually the OVF because 99% of the time thats all I want.

For the same reason I want a fully articulated flipscreen because 99% of the time I dont need the backside monitor and I just want to turn it around so its fully protected.

I also want a SLR that can be permanently turned into lifeview mode, and that offers wide angle lenses that can only be used with the mirror permanently flipped up. This helps with wide angle lenses so for those having such a mode would be awesome.

Such a camera would offer the best of both worlds, with all the strengths of SLR and mirrorless combined.

 

[Designer]

I won't be considering a FFM anytime soon.

 

[greybeard]

The mirror box is the smallest piece of the puzzle. The real difference is the distance from the sensor to the lens. Cannon went from 44mm to 20mm. Per the Sigma CEO, and many others this will offer a radically new capability in lenses. The largest change is they will be able to make faster and larger aperture lenses significantly easier, or previously impossible.

A secondary effect, is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) which lowers the technical skills required; therefore makes it easier for people who are more art centered to utilize the camera capabilities, and for the generally less talented (e.g. me) better able to see what we have composed and depend less on our fragile memories/imagination.

Tim

Yeah..the ONE thing I am interested in seeing is the way the NEW Nikon lens mount affects lens design and lens performance.

See Ming Thein's comments on how well the new 24-70mm f/4 Z-mount lens performed on the Nikon Z7. Full review: The 2018 Nikon Z7 and Z 24-70/4

"We have a new, wide-diameter, ultra short flange mount to enable much faster lenses, easy adaptation and higher image quality: a wider throat means a larger exit pupil and better telecentricity, and more compact lens designs since a rear correction group isn’t required. There’s also a sealed FTZ adaptor that delivers full functionality with existing lenses – and a tripod mount, for better balance. It works as advertised, but perhaps there was a missed opportunity to include additional controls or filters like Canon (probably patented)."

And NOW, here is the part that has me interested in what the NEW Z-mount might offer!

"
I have the Z 24-70/4 (being the only one available and of interest to me so far); construction is sturdy but mostly plastic (with some sticktion to the action), but the same applies to my trusty [24-120/4] and that hasn’t let me down yet. There are two remarkable things about this lens: firstly, the collapsed size is tiny: it’s the same size as the primes, or say an 85/1.8. The second thing is it’s neutrality: it isn’t crazy sharp like an Otus, but it isn’t soft, either; microcontrast is middling; macrocontrast is middle to high, and it’s slightly better stopped down (peaking somewhere between f5.6 and f8). It definitely matches the resolution of the sensor. But what’s amazing is its consistency across the focal range, most focal distances and across the frame, even into the extreme corners. Remember: this isn’t a prime; it’s a collapsing compact wide-to-portrait zoom, with very short back flange distance.

This is the first time I’ve seen this kind of behaviour in a zoom: normally there’s an obvious resolution peak in the middle, with the edges only catching up a couple of stops down. Furthermore, chromatic aberration (both longitudinal and lateral) and flare are almost zero. You really have to get something very bright in the frame at wide to see even slight ghosts. This is solid evidence of the performance improvements that come from a larger mount, larger exit pupil (32mm!) and higher telecentricity. On top of that, focus is completely silent and nearly instant, and you have the benefit of a very short 30cm minimum distance from the focal plane at all focal lengths. There is some degredation in resolution close up, but it was never designed to be a macro. Bokeh is smooth and highlights are circular, with little evidence of onion rings, hot edges or corner cat-eyeing."
**************

So, there's that...an all-new lens mount that offers more telecentricity; something Olympus understood when they got into the m4/3 camera biz, and made some of the finest-performing zooms that were designed-especially-for-digitial-camera-use. The new 24-70mm lens offers very good performance, all the way across the frame, and all the way across the focal length range, even into the extreme corners. As Ming writes, "his is the first time I’ve seen this kind of behaviour in a zoom," and he notes that this zoom matches the 47-MP sensor's capability. Also, no flare, and no CA. All this, from a compact, collapsible, affordable zoom lens!

So, you have the Z6 or Z7? How well does the 24-120 f/4 perform with the Z body and adapter compared to the z 24-70 f/4?

 

[bribrius]

I get so confused on these conversations. Few things.
Most hardly print photos, those that do rarely go beyond a 8×10 print.
Almost all photos are edited. The differences between a $300 and $1000 camera could be fixed in editing.
When shooting film, people might go YEARS using the same camera. Not changing every two years.
People seem more worried about noise or iq than the content of the shot.
Vast majorities take photos of friends, family, which most any camera will do (and most of these will never see print).
My greatest kick is when someone spends a crap load on gear then sends a file to print to walmart photo lab....
How about paying for a 1000 dollar lens then softening it in post? Must be too sharp.
What are you shooting? What are you trying to accomplish? These are good basic questions..
Too much noise.,,, how much comes out in the print?????
Noise reduction "oh i dont use it to get rid of noise i use it to soften the image".
People edit things to the point only half of the original shot even exists.,,,
Look at this great photo.. Of nothing., but check out the quality from my huge investment, in taking this photo of., well nothing.
Hey the new camera is out this month, who is buying?
Seriously, sometimes a $20 camera from a yard sale will do for many people....
Each camera, lens, will render somewhat differently (think of film) . It seems more about how you like the "look" of how it renders. Will some of the newest models make shooting EASIER? Of course. But then people complain about those that shoot in "auto". Well i thought we were trying to make it easier?
My sensor sucks.. Okay dont shoot in low light or buy external flashes and lights., My sensor still sucks and i just upgraded, i think i need to again. Really? How much money you making on a print???..
"But oh, i do this for a business". Okay first of all that usually means they bring in little income and their business is subsidized by other work or a spouse. But okay, so you do it for a business, so lets see the balance sheet. You need to make money..
It is so hard to find a "meaningful" capture. And if you do i think the majority of any camera out there will suffice (including the $20 yard sale one) .
Few years ago i bought my kids $25 dollar cameras from walmart. I used one for kicks to do portraits on someones little girl. Granted, daylight. But the $25 camera put out near equal quality to my $1000 nikon.


.
Some serious b.s floating around out there..

Oh i have to add this. I was watching a documentary on prime video. This one guy self financed had his own gallery, was paying thousands to have is photos put on aluminum silver giant wall prints. Like real serious $$$$$$ invested. And i was looking at his photos watching this thinking "man, he doesnt even shoot very good photos. Okay. But not great." Dropping 300k in a gallery and equipment and printing process didnt help them much...

 

[greybeard]

I get so confused on these conversations. Few things.
Most hardly print photos, those that do rarely go beyond a 8×10 print.
Almost all photos are edited. The differences between a $300 and $1000 camera could be fixed in editing.
When shooting film, people might go YEARS using the same camera. Not changing every two years.
People seem more worried about noise or iq than the content of the shot.
Vast majorities take photos of friends, family, which most any camera will do (and most of these will never see print).
My greatest kick is when someone spends a crap load on gear then sends a file to print to walmart photo lab....
How about paying for a 1000 dollar lens then softening it in post? Must be too sharp.
What are you shooting? What are you trying to accomplish? These are good basic questions..
Too much noise.,,, how much comes out in the print?????
Noise reduction "oh i dont use it to get rid of noise i use it to soften the image".
People edit things to the point only half of the original shot even exists.,,,
Look at this great photo.. Of nothing., but check out the quality from my huge investment, in taking this photo of., well nothing.
Hey the new camera is out this month, who is buying?
Seriously, sometimes a $20 camera from a yard sale will do for many people....
Each camera, lens, will render somewhat differently (think of film) . It seems more about how you like the "look" of how it renders. Will some of the newest models make shooting EASIER? Of course. But then people complain about those that shoot in "auto". Well i thought we were trying to make it easier?
My sensor sucks.. Okay dont shoot in low light or buy external flashes and lights., My sensor still sucks and i just upgraded, i think i need to again. Really? How much money you making on a print???..
"But oh, i do this for a business". Okay first of all that usually means they bring in little income and their business is subsidized by other work or a spouse. But okay, so you do it for a business, so lets see the balance sheet. You need to make money..
It is so hard to find a "meaningful" capture. And if you do i think the majority of any camera out there will suffice (including the $20 yard sale one) .
Few years ago i bought my kids $25 dollar cameras from walmart. I used one for kicks to do portraits on someones little girl. Granted, daylight. But the $25 camera put out near equal quality to my $1000 nikon.


.
Some serious b.s floating around out there..

Oh i have to add this. I was watching a documentary on prime video. This one guy self financed had his own gallery, was paying thousands to have is photos put on aluminum silver giant wall prints. Like real serious $$$$$$ invested. And i was looking at his photos watching this thinking "man, he doesnt even shoot very good photos. Okay. But not great." Dropping 300k in a gallery and equipment and printing process didnt help them much...

I for one love cameras, I love buying new cameras and lenses, and I make no apologies for it. I take lots of pictures with all of them. My house is full of the ones I've had printed and I sell a few from time to time and post a lot on social media and on this and other forums. If people want to pixel peep and buy the latest and greatest, more power to them. If amatures want to discuss the merits of one system over another, that is what hobbyists and professionals do.

 

[cgw]

More eggnog, anyone?

 

[Chucktin]

I bought an X Pro-2 because I fell in love with Nikon, especially the Nikon SP while in School in the late 50s. Still have one copy. The Fuji is close but not a Nikon.
So currently I'm shooting a D850 for important "stuff" and the Fuji does stand in duty when I can't see donkeying around with a ton and a half camera and lenses.
What's all that mean? - I choose my weapons is all. YRMV.

 

[gryffinwings]

This thread is the reason why I am taking a break from digital and got some film cameras, new gear is far too expensive. I picked up a Nikon FM for 30 and put in 83 for replacing seals. I also picked up a Nikkor 105mm f2.5 in nice condition for $220. I love the work flow and how it slows me down to think about how and what pictures I take.

 

[Chucktin]

You could ignore the bells and whistles in a Digital body and go commando by using M (manual settings).
Let's face it. If you haven't chosen well when your finger twitches then no amount of postprocessing is going to get you back to that point in time period, film or digital. I keep wondering, how many exposure "experts" routinely exposure bracket and then present only the best image? I don't, but I'm a lazy SOB.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

You could ignore the bells and whistles in a Digital body and go commando by using M (manual settings).
Let's face it. If you haven't chosen well when your finger twitches then no amount of postprocessing is going to get you back to that point in time period, film or digital. I keep wondering, how many exposure "experts" routinely exposure bracket and then present only the best image? I don't, but I'm a lazy SOB.

I’m no expert for exposure so I let the camera handle it. I’m on a a7ii so I pretty much see what I’m getting before I shoot. I’ve never used exposure bracketing.