Reasons I Like/Dislike Mirrorless

[Braineack]

a mirrorless FF camera with a 70-200 2.8 hanging from it will be heavy.

the mirror/prism inside a DSLR is pretty light...

 

[Derrel]

about a month ago I had the opportunity to briefly handle the new Panasonic 24 megapixel full frame mirrorless... it has styling cues that make it look a lot like a digital single lens reflex… I believe that the two new full frame mirrorless models from Panasonic are the two newest Mirrorless offerings on the marketplace

 

[markjwyatt]

I love my Fuji XT-2 mirrorless. Before this I mainly shot film SLRs, TLRs, and recently 35mm rangefinder as well as film and digital point and shoots. When I bought the XT-2, it was my re-entrance to more "serious" photography last year. At the time I thought there was no more need for DSLRs (especially also given the existence of cameras like the XPro2 with its OVF). Framing was perfect, for me no lag (for high speed sports, maybe still some issues), reminded me of shooting a film SLR. Great battery life, dual cards, etc. Focus did take a little getting used to, but I got it and it is not a problem.

Now, one thing I am doing is copying slides (plus intending to digitize negatives also) on a Durst slide copier. This is one area I think the DSLR may still have a significant advantage- namely focusing on slides and negatives. I do not feel completely confident focusing with the EVF, but the magnification function does help. Of course with a DSLR, there is likely no optical magnification (maybe an eyepiece attachment?), so it may not be that much better.

For what it's worth- I do like discussions like this. This is a discussion board, and we can all learn things form these discussions even though they may get a little superficial at times (this one was just fine).

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Nikon's departure from the F mount is my problem. May as well buy medium format.

 

[markjwyatt]

Nikon's departure from the F mount is my problem. May as well buy medium format.

Except for the cost factor (presuming you are saying digital), which propagates throughout the system (base camera cost, lens cost, storage needs, etc.).

 

[Derrel]

Nikon has some eyepiece magnification accessories. I have one,a 1.7 x screw-in eyepiece magnifying accessory for the round eyepiece "professional cameras", as opposed to the entry-and intermediate-level cameras which use a rectangular shaped eyepiece. I believe they used to make a 6X swing away eyepiece magnifier for critical focusing needs, but has been at least a decade since I have seen any specifications for this device. So long in fact, That I am wondering if they still make this device.

 

[Derrel]

a mirrorless FF camera with a 70-200 2.8 hanging from it will be heavy.

the mirror/prism inside a DSLR is pretty light...

Around a decade ago or so ago, when the micro 4/3 format was introduced more or less in conjunction with the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera idea, A commonly counted benefit was "smaller and lighter", but this does not really hold true, in lenses, in the case of anything much longer than around 100 mm or so. The Early and original idea of saving weight and size no longer holds much water, now that the leading manufacturers of Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have introduced full frame size sensor cameras in the case of Panasonic, Sony, Canon, and Nikon. The Sony A7 series cameras are now commonly held to be the most advanced, but this year Canon and Nikon have made tremendous strides, and Panasonic entered the full frame market a few months ago with two models of full frame mirrorless cameras. About a month ago I happened to see the new Panasonic 24 megapixel full frame model with a nice zoom lens sitting on the counter of a Portland,Oregon store. The camera was the personal property one of the clerks who worked there, and he allowed me to handle and examine the camera. Let me put it this way: this was no small camera, and the weight and size were substantial in both the body and the lens. I would say that it would be easily possible to purchase a smaller and lighter single lens reflex which would weigh less than this full frame Panasonic mirrorless.

As far as lenses go, a decade ago there were very few "big glass" options available fot MILC cameras. Today? A relatively good number of lenses are now available,and those lenses are about the same size and weight as for traditional single lens reflex cameras.

there are other cameras besides those four I mentioned above, such as the the cameras made by Leica and by Hasselblad, as well as a few mezzo or medium-format digital mirrorless options (fuji g series) which are pretty large cameras and which use relatively large and heavy lenses.

I think we need to consider that mirrorless does not automatically mean "smaller" nor "lighter". it is no longer 2007

 

[Braineack]

yes, everything is in relation to the size of the sensor.

 

[Jeff15]

There are none so blind as those who cannot see....................

 

[Tropicalmemories]

yes, everything is in relation to the size of the sensor.

..... which is why I shoot APSC crop - and then mirrorless adds secondary benefits of info on screen in the EVF, true wysiwyg and less bulk, but at the cost of battery life.

There's always some compromises, but when I moved from my 35mm film SLR's to digital in the early days, the thought of still having a mirror seemed unnecessary to me, so I was an early adopter of mirrorless (Nikon, then Canon, then Lumix and now Fuji) - but I have to admit it's only in the past couple of years that I feel mirrorless can finally compete effectively with dslr's.

 

[Derrel]

MILC cameras have improved markedly over the last three years. We are now at the point where pretty much a full kit can be assembled from at least two manufactures stable of MILC offerings

 

[SquarePeg]

It all depends on what you value. I value lighter weight and smaller size above having 2.8 available at all focal lengths. If you are ok with shooting at higher ISO and dealing with a bit of noise, you CAN have a smaller kit. The Fuji xt2 and 18-55 and 50-230 cover 99% of my needs, fit in a small bag or medium sized purse and are light enough for me to carry all day on a hike.

I never leave my kit at home due to weight or inconvenience anymore. When I had a dslr and dslr sized lenses, I was frequently leaving them at the hotel when on vacation because I didn’t want to lug them around. And that wasn’t even a giant full frame!

You have to make a conscious decision not to get sucked back into the big lens mentality or you switch to mirrorless and end up right back where you were.

 

[RVT1K]

yes, everything is in relation to the size of the sensor.

When comparing my D7000 to my D4...yes.
When comparing my gripped D7000 to my D4...not so much.

I also like the way a big camera feels in my hand but I realize that is a personal preference.

 

[Derrel]

One thing that no one has mentioned is the new lens design possibilities that are made possible with a different flange to focal length distance. For example the new Nikon F/1.8 for the Z series mirror lists… Read the reviews… This is an extremely good performer, better than any Nikon 50 to date… And the 24 mm to 70 mm Z series zoom… an extraordinary performer...I expect that as more Z-series lenses are released, we will see a significant increase in optical performance over lenses that were designed to be retrofocus for a moving mirror camera.
I think it will be most interesting to see the performance of Z-series wide angle prime lenses.

 

[markjwyatt]

This is the same principle with film cameras. Rangefinder lenses, especially wider angle (guess <24mm) benefited greatly on the rangefinder, while retrofocus was needed on SLRs complicating the design.