What are the pros of a mirrorless camera ?

[Breezy85]

IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
Yes, there are sports/action mirrorless, but those are the EXPENSIVE Sony cameras. That technology has not filtered down to the cameras that most of us can afford.

The camera mfg are still figuring out the batteries. Mirrorless uses power, no power no viewfinder image. But the early mirrorless used a small battery, to make the camera small. So the battery life was significantly less than a dslr, primarily due to the smaller battery. Some of the newer models are using larger batteries, so this problem is slowly being addressed.

In my case going to micro 4/3, the camera and lenses are SIGNIFICANTLY smaller and lighter than crop or FF. This makes for a smaller and lighter kit for travel and as a grab camera. My Olympus kit is about 43% lighter than my similar Nikon DX kit.

The con is the smaller 4/3 sensor is not as good for low light IQ compared to the larger a FF sensor.
There is no free lunch.

Presently, you can get a decent dslr for less cost than a comprable mirrorless.
This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.

See I have been wondering about mirrorless myself. Since I shoot mostly concerts and festivals, I find myself in low light situations often. I already am looking to upgrade to full frame but I've been contemplating whether to switch over to mirrorless or just stick to my goal of a regular full frame DSLR.​

 

[Gary A.]

I shoot a lot of concerts and shows. I found the Fuji APS-C a good compromise between the small footprint of MFT and the IQ of affect.

I own FF and MFT cameras.

 

[Gary A.]

XP2 @ ISO 1600

XT1 @ ISO 3200

XT1 @ ISO 1600

XT1 @ ISO 1600

 

[ac12]

IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
Yes, there are sports/action mirrorless, but those are the EXPENSIVE Sony cameras. That technology has not filtered down to the cameras that most of us can afford.

The camera mfg are still figuring out the batteries. Mirrorless uses power, no power no viewfinder image. But the early mirrorless used a small battery, to make the camera small. So the battery life was significantly less than a dslr, primarily due to the smaller battery. Some of the newer models are using larger batteries, so this problem is slowly being addressed.

In my case going to micro 4/3, the camera and lenses are SIGNIFICANTLY smaller and lighter than crop or FF. This makes for a smaller and lighter kit for travel and as a grab camera. My Olympus kit is about 43% lighter than my similar Nikon DX kit.

The con is the smaller 4/3 sensor is not as good for low light IQ compared to the larger a FF sensor.
There is no free lunch.

Presently, you can get a decent dslr for less cost than a comprable mirrorless.
This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.

See I have been wondering about mirrorless myself. Since I shoot mostly concerts and festivals, I find myself in low light situations often. I already am looking to upgrade to full frame but I've been contemplating whether to switch over to mirrorless or just stick to my goal of a regular full frame DSLR.​

Look for the lens first.
It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.

Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.

 

[beagle100]

IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
.
This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.

I shoot sports and action with a mirrorless camera ......... seems to be there

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

 

[Breezy85]

Look for the lens first.
It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.

Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.

Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.

 

[jcdeboever]

I think if I were only a portrait photog, I'd probably use

IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
.
This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.

I shoot sports and action with a mirrorless camera ......... seems to be there

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

I agree, there is nothing it can't do. You just have to figure out the best settings. I have seen some amazing sports / action shots using the system, I just have not spent the time to figure it out. I am more into street photography. I have seen some amazing portrait work with the system as well and most of the stuff I'm blown away by are from the 50-140 and 90. There is a guy using the 55-200 and the 18-55 on the X photog website that is pretty flippin impressive as well. The Fuji glass is really impressive in my opinion. The XT-2 just keeps getting better with firmware updates. I will say though that the 56mm is a pro lens that requires a pro behind it, I struggle with that lens and my skill level is not up to speed yet. It is slow, slower than film but when you get it, it shines.

 

[jcdeboever]

XP2 @ ISO 1600

XT1 @ ISO 3200

XT1 @ ISO 1600

XT1 @ ISO 1600

Very impressive.

 

[beagle100]

I think if I were only a portrait photog, I'd probably use

IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
.
This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.

I shoot sports and action with a mirrorless camera ......... seems to be there

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

I agree, there is nothing it can't do. You just have to figure out the best settings. I have seen some amazing sports / action shots using the system, I just have not spent the time to figure it out..

if you're more into street pics look at "pancake" style lens

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[ac12]

Look for the lens first.
It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.

Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.

Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.

My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body

 

[Breezy85]

Look for the lens first.
It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.

Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.

Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.

My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body

Oh wow
Yeah I rented a Canon 6D a few weeks ago for some shows I was shooting, and it was the best thing I ever did! I got amazing photos and even the bands themselves were blown away by the photos I got.

 

[beagle100]

Look for the lens first.
It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.

Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.

My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body

that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use all the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS, even the rare TDK lens
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[ac12]

Look for the lens first.
It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.

Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.

My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body

that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use all the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS, even the rare TDK lens
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

The problem that I ran into is that the FoV changes with the sensor format.
Example the classic 70-200 FX/FF lens.

On a DX/crop body with a 1.5x crop factor, the FoV is equivalent to a 105-300 FX/FF lens. The issue is at the short end, the 105mm equivalent FoV is too tight for when the subject gets close. So while my DX camera can use the FX lens, the tighter FoV on a DX body, makes it less than the ideal lens it was on a FX body.

On my m43 camera, with a 2x crop, it would have the FoV of a 140-400 FF lens.
So what is a fine football sideline lens on a FF camera, is a bleacher lens on a m43 camera.

So the ability to use a lens does not make it a practical fit, as originally designed/intended in its native format.

As for "easily use," that is another issue. All of the Nikon to m43 adapters that I looked at, all stated that electronic communication between the lens and camera was not supported.

This $480 adapter is an example.
"The Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter for Nikon G Lens to Select Micro Four Thirds-Mount Cameras does not support electronic communication between an attached camera and lens."
Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter MB_SPNFG-M43-BM2 B&H

Hmm,
- So can I adjust f-stop from the camera, NO.
- There is a ring on the adapter to adjust the aperture. So it is a MANUAL aperture, like my father's 1950s lens. And I think it works ONLY for lenses with a mechanical aperture lever. It will NOT work for lenses with electronic apertures.
- Will the autofocus work, not if the AF sensor in the camera cannot talk to the AF motor in the lens. And I do not see a mechanical AF link (screw driver) for the mechanical AF (AF and AF-D).
- Can I focus manually, not if it is 'focus by wire.'
- Will the Image Stabilizer work, maybe not.

For Nikon lenses, we might as we go back to the old manual lenses on the m43 cameras. Even then we loose significant functionality, effectively taking us back to the 1950s.

 

[beagle100]

Look for the lens first.
It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.

Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.

My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body

that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use all the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS, even the rare TDK lens
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

So the ability to use a lens does not make it a practical fit, as originally designed/intended in its native format.

As for "easily use," that is another issue. All of the Nikon to m43 adapters that I looked at, all stated that electronic communication between the lens and camera was not supported.
- Will the autofocus work, not if the AF sensor in the camera cannot talk to the AF motor in the lens. And I do not see a mechanical AF link (screw driver) for the mechanical AF (AF and AF-D).
- Can I focus manually, not if it is 'focus by wire.'
- Will the Image Stabilizer work, maybe not.

For Nikon lenses, we might as we go back to the old manual lenses on the m43 cameras. Even then we loose significant functionality, effectively taking us back to the 1950s.

I have no problem using "non-native" lenses on a mirrorless camera - full AF, IS, etc
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Breezy85]

Look for the lens first.
It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.

Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.

My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body

that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use all the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS, even the rare TDK lens
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

The problem that I ran into is that the FoV changes with the sensor format.
Example the classic 70-200 FX/FF lens.

On a DX/crop body with a 1.5x crop factor, the FoV is equivalent to a 105-300 FX/FF lens. The issue is at the short end, the 105mm equivalent FoV is too tight for when the subject gets close. So while my DX camera can use the FX lens, the tighter FoV on a DX body, makes it less than the ideal lens it was on a FX body.

On my m43 camera, with a 2x crop, it would have the FoV of a 140-400 FF lens.
So what is a fine football sideline lens on a FF camera, is a bleacher lens on a m43 camera.

So the ability to use a lens does not make it a practical fit, as originally designed/intended in its native format.

As for "easily use," that is another issue. All of the Nikon to m43 adapters that I looked at, all stated that electronic communication between the lens and camera was not supported.

This $480 adapter is an example.
"The Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter for Nikon G Lens to Select Micro Four Thirds-Mount Cameras does not support electronic communication between an attached camera and lens."
Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter MB_SPNFG-M43-BM2 B&H

Hmm,
- So can I adjust f-stop from the camera, NO.
- There is a ring on the adapter to adjust the aperture. So it is a MANUAL aperture, like my father's 1950s lens. And I think it works ONLY for lenses with a mechanical aperture lever. It will NOT work for lenses with electronic apertures.
- Will the autofocus work, not if the AF sensor in the camera cannot talk to the AF motor in the lens. And I do not see a mechanical AF link (screw driver) for the mechanical AF (AF and AF-D).
- Can I focus manually, not if it is 'focus by wire.'
- Will the Image Stabilizer work, maybe not.

For Nikon lenses, we might as we go back to the old manual lenses on the m43 cameras. Even then we loose significant functionality, effectively taking us back to the 1950s.

Eh, I'd rather just stick with the DSLR so I don't have to chuck out $$$ for the camera plus an adapter.