What are the pros of a mirrorless camera ?

[waday]

I switched from Canon to Panasonic last year.
The only thing i'm missing - 135L.
It can be fixed with Metabones Ultra easily.

Have you tried Oly's 75mm? While it's a little longer than 135mm (35-mm equivalent), it can produce some fantastic images.

 

[sergezap]

I switched from Canon to Panasonic last year.
The only thing i'm missing - 135L.
It can be fixed with Metabones Ultra easily.

Have you tried Oly's 75mm? While it's a little longer than 135mm (35-mm equivalent), it can produce some fantastic images.

Yes, and i'll buy it.
But in comparison with 135L it's just sucks.
Not in the terms resolution, sharpness, color rendition and so on.
Technically Oly is far superior,but images from 135L looks like magic to me.

 

[Gary A.]

I enjoyed my 75mm when I was shooting MFT.

75mm

75mm

75mm

75mm

 

[waday]

Not in the terms resolution, sharpness, color rendition and so on.

Or size, weight, price...

Technically Oly is far superior,but images from 135L looks like magic to me.

I can appreciate that... that we all have a lens that we like the output of more than another lens. I think the Oly 75mm is one of those for me.

I enjoyed my 75mm when I was shooting MFT.

I agree, I very much like shooting with the 75mm. Gary, I've just recently noticed old posts of yours on the one MFT forum. I especially liked the "what are you drinking" thread you started. Do we have a similar one on here? (And, BTW, I LOVE that last picture with the boat and skyline.)

 

[sergezap]

I enjoyed my 75mm when I was shooting MFT.

Sorry, but this is incomparable.
It's just impossible with native MFT lenses.
I even not sure, if Speedboster will helps.

Small black button click => Watercolor background in full length portrait!

 

[cameraland]

We sell every major brand. For the last 5 years we have seen the market swing HEAVILY to mirrorless. That is the way the industry is going. Depending on your budget, Mirrorless will do what you need for most types of photography.
In the last 6 months we have taken more traditional digital SLR's and lenses in trade towards mirrorless outfits. The last time this happened was 1985 when everyone was trading in their equipment for the Minolta Maxxum.
Canon lens owners can switch to Sony and get the Metabones or Sigma adapters. You should only do this if you have a lot of glass. The Sony lenses are superb, the Fuji system is terrific as well.
Feel free to contact me at [email protected] with any questions.

 

[Jeff15]

Mirrorless is the future....

 

[petrochemist]

Hey everyone

I'm a beginner to portrait shooting and I need some clarification on an item that I'm going to get. I consider buying Fujifilm X-T2, however, I have never used a mirrorless camera before. What would you say? Is it quite a good tool exactly for portraits? what issues can prevent from buying it?

anyway, thanks

Yes the technology is fine for portraits.

I have several older mirrorless cameras (over 4 years old - the gep to DSLRs has closed since mine were made). Mine can do most jobs just as well as my DSLR, but do suffer a little in fast action. They definitely have the edge for low light shooting as well as for adapting lenses & infra-red...

When I upgrade to another camera it will definitely be a mirrorless.

 

[Warhorse]

As I understand the LCD screen shows 100% what will be in the photo, but does the EFV on the models that have them, show the same 100%?

 

[sergezap]

As I understand the LCD screen shows 100% what will be in the photo, but does the EFV on the models that have them, show the same 100%?

If you turned on something like "Constant preview" or "Exposure simulation", so the answer is yes.
In RAW mode you'll get the preview of embedded jpeg according to your active photo style.
Anyway they both show the same.

 

[markjwyatt]

I believe there is little reason for the DSLR in digital world. If you still want a an optical viewfinder a combination optical/EVF makes more sense. The SLR and its mirror was an engineering solution to seeing the picture accurately in advance with light sensitive emulsion film. Don't get me wrong, there are still some excellent DSLRs. I was considering the Pentax K1 Mark III for a while (along with the Sony a7 III), but decided not to go full frame which then led to my next choice, the Fuji X-series (XT2 specifically). The next round of EVF technology will likely put the nail in the coffin of the DSLR (the current generation is pretty close already).

 

[Derrel]

I enjoyed my 75mm when I was shooting MFT.

Sorry, but this is incomparable.
It's just impossible with native MFT lenses.
I even not sure, if Speedboster will helps.
View attachment 159728 View attachment 159729 View attachment 159730 View attachment 159731 View attachment 159732
Small black button click => Watercolor background in full length portrait!

Yes, the 135mm f/2 L lens from Canon is a fantastic optic when used on a 24x36mm sensor, at the normal distances that full-frame gives the photographer. With a tiny-sensor camera, the lens becomes narrow in angle of view, and the photographer is forced to statnd relatively FAR AWAY with ALL of the telephoto lenses...75mm,85mm,100mm,135mm,200mm...and because the camera-to-subject distance is so long and the capture format so small, at most aperture values, there's quite a bit of recognizability to the background. That is an issue with MFT format cameras and their native lenses...the format's small, so there's a LOT of camera-to-subject distance, and even at f/2.8, the backgrounds tend toward the more-recongixable rather than the creamy, dreamy, totally-defocused look the 135/2 L is known for.

When we look at your pictures of these lovely young ladies, we can literally SEE what the 135/2 is known for: a very quick transition from the OOF foreground, then immediately sliding into the focused zone, and then a quick and smooth transition to the defocused zone. The last two photos show this superbly, at the foot-level on both women's shots; OOF foreground, in-focus zone, then a quick, smooth transition to the OOF backdrop. This is one of the reasons that 24x36mm or FF or FX cameras are so popular wth people-shooters...the actual lenses that are out there, and the distances that those lenses can be used at, to make full-length standing pictures...this is a very stylized way of photographing people with a lot of background defocus. Some people just do not "get it", but it is exactly why the camera makers have come up with a number of fast tele lenses over the decades. (85/1.4,105/2,135/2,180/2.8,200/2)

I appreciate the idea that Speedbooster can not achieve the same look; with smaller camera formats at typical 20- to 50-foot distances, even increasing the maximum f/stop's width (which Speedbooster does) of normal telephoto lenses in the f/2.8 or f/2 range, the smallness of the format and the camera-to-subject distance is still less-effective than using a bigger capture format, if the type of backdrop blurring you show is the end goal.

This is why Nikon has recently developed the ultra-aperture 105mm f/1.4 for full-frame Nikons...HUGE defocus potential on people pictures.

 

[sergezap]

I'm not a shallow dof junky, the reason i made a note about 135L, 99% of urban background at the place i live looks disgusting.
I think it's not about defocus as is, but it's more about defocus character.
Sigma primes has a bokeh, but i find it very boring. It's just a blur, imho.

 

[Derrel]

I'm not a shallow dof junky, the reason i made a note about 135L, 99% of urban background at the place i live looks disgusting.
I think it's not about defocus as is, but it's more about defocus character.
Sigma primes has a bokeh, but i find it very boring. It's just a blur, imho.

Throwing all that ugly backdrop out of focus makes the person POP! in a gorgeous way. You are right...the 135/2 L has delicious defocus character...I owned the lens for a few years...it's stellar. I agree; some of the new Sigma primes have rather unimpressive defocus character, and some of them (35/1.4 ART and 50/1.4 ART) have really hard, jarring defocus character. Canon's 135/2-L is not the sharpest 135mm lens (Zeiss and Sigma both have sharper,crisper lenses), but it's plenty sharp, but has the gorgeous defocus character that only a handful of lenses have. Sigma's gone overboard maximizing sharpness so their lenses test-chart score very highly, but the defocus character of such lenses is often lacking.

 

[petrochemist]

Yes, the 135mm f/2 L lens from Canon is a fantastic optic when used on a 24x36mm sensor, at the normal distances that full-frame gives the photographer. With a tiny-sensor camera, the lens becomes narrow in angle of view, and the photographer is forced to statnd relatively FAR AWAY with ALL of the telephoto lenses...75mm,85mm,100mm,135mm,200mm...and because the camera-to-subject distance is so long and the capture format so small, at most aperture values, there's quite a bit of recognizability to the background. That is an issue with MFT format cameras and their native lenses...the format's small, so there's a LOT of camera-to-subject distance, and even at f/2.8, the backgrounds tend toward the more-recongixable rather than the creamy, dreamy, totally-defocused look the 135/2 L is known for.

Derrel I usually find I agree with your posts, but I don't get this rubbish at all.

Whatever the format size the photographer chooses the camera-subject distance to get the perspective he/she wants (or as near as is practical). They then select an appropriate lens for their distance & format. The distance I'd want for a portrait would be the same with a mobile phone, compact camera, MFT, APSC, full frame, medium format or large format - as long as a suitable lens was available.

Yes if using a 135/2 on MFT the subject distance could be too long for portraits, but a 85mm/2.8 or 50mm/1.4 would both be pretty suitable. When putting together a camera system a wise photographer gets lenses for the effect on their camera not for the result it gives on a totally different format.