What are the pros of a mirrorless camera ?

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Firstly, I would like to say some positive aspects of a mirrorless camera. They are very easy to carry. Smaller,lighter and cheaper than a DSLR. Instead of view finder it has live view system.

Secondly, I would like say a few cons of it. The autofocus system of mirrorless is much slower. It has heavily customizable settings that can be hard for you since it has no view finder.
So, choice is yours.

The autofocus system of mirrorless is much slower?
I hope you're kidding!

That’s what has been touted for a long time but I think the gap is nearly gone now if I’m not mistaken. I have a Sony a7ii with the 85mm gm lens and it’s pretty darn quick.

 

[Derrel]

Petrochemist, Surely you understand that the larger capture formats have shallower depth of field, for the same picture angle of view. A 4x5 sheet film camera creates shallow depth of field headshots; an iPhone creates a huge DOF on a headshot. The only rubbish here is your failure to comprehend some very-basic photographic science. Perhaps you can re-read my post with an effort toward better reading comprehension;surely you have the requisite scientific background to understand how DOF relates to capture size. Not every camera format creates the same look-no matter how much you say it does.

 

[petrochemist]

Petrochemist, Surely you understand that the larger capture formats have shallower depth of field, for the same picture angle of view. A 4x5 sheet film camera creates shallow depth of field headshots; an iPhone creates a huge DOF on a headshot. The only rubbish here is your failure to comprehend some very-basic photographic science. Perhaps you can re-read my post with an effort toward better reading comprehension;surely you have the requisite scientific background to understand how DOF relates to capture size. Not every camera format creates the same look-no matter how much you say it does.

Yes, larger formats give shallower DOF for a given situation.
But they do not force the photographer to stand further back - standing further back will change the perspective significantly. They just need a different lens to get similar results, which includes using a faster aperture to get the same DOF if that is needed.
I wouldn't claim every camera produces the same look - there are just so many variables in digital cameras in particular that can introduce subtle differences even when lens & sensor size are identical. In many cases DOF between format sizes can be matched by using an appropriate aperture though there are limits to this.

 

[sergezap]

Perspective depends from lens focal length, it's irrelevant with focus distance.
Perspective compression depends from focal length only.
Relative distance from camera-to-object-to-background affects only a background blur.
The level of background blur outside the DOF has no any common with perspective.
DOF is irrelevant to bokeh.
Please, stop.

 

[waday]

Wow, we have a lot going on in this thread, from perspective discussions and DOF to format differences. Maybe we can keep to the OP’s original question and theme regarding portraits.

Wouldn’t want this to turn into a format war or a DOF/bokeh/perspective argument.

 

[petrochemist]

Perspective depends from lens focal length, it's irrelevant with focus distance.
Perspective compression depends from focal length only.

WRONG!
Take a photograph of street lights with 2 different focal lengths from the same spot, then measure the heights of the poles. You will find the ratio of heights is the same. This is what perspective is. If you change position to make the nearer object the same size with your new focal length it will change the perspective - this is where the oft quoted misconception that focal length controls perspective comes from.
Instead it's all about the relative angles subtended at the eye/lens which is purely a matter of position.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

[Note: I have re-arranged the quotes.]

. . .
Sorry, but this is incomparable.
It's just impossible with native MFT lenses.

I even not sure, if Speedboster will helps.
. . .

I think the equivalent M4:3 lens to a 135mm F2 would be about 65mm F1.0, and as far as I know, you're right. Regardless of particular "Bokeh style" and other quirks, that focal length and Fstop combination simply does not currently exist.
[2018-07-06 17:24 Correction: I originally wrote "65mm F1.4, which was wrong.]

Yes, the 135mm f/2 L lens from Canon
. . .
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.

. . .

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.
. . .

I would recommend against "Speedboosters" for still photography in general. You would need one properly matched to the specific lens and designed and made on a "cost is no object" basis. "Speedboosters" seem to be wonderful for video, but, video is very forgiving.

Anyway, just out of curiosity, I wondered what current lenses might be close on a Micro 4:3. I have never really looked into any of these lenses yet, so I make no comment about whether you might actually like any of them, but this is what I found:

All the Following are Manual:

"Meyer-Optik Gorlitz P58 58mm f/1.9 Lens for Micro Four Thirds"
B&H # MEG1958MFT MFR # MOG1958MFT, $1,299.00 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly short focal length, and quite expensive.]

"Lensbaby Velvet 56mm f/1.6 Lens for Micro Four Thirds"
B&H # LELBV56BM MFR # LBV56BM $449.95 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly short focal length, but a nice price.]

[There might be a "7Artisan 55mm F1.4" for around $130.00 US -- I just thought of it and I have not looked for it yet.]

The Following Need Adapters

"HD Pentax DA 70mm F2.4 Limited"
B&H # PE7024DALB MFR # 21430, price 2018-0703 $496.95 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly long focal length, but a nice price.]

"smc Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited"
B&H # PE7718FAB MFR # 27980, price 2018-0703 $896.95 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly long focal length, price? Actually, rule this one out, if the 75mm Olympus was too long, so this would be worse.]

The Following Is Automatic:

"Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Lens for Micro Four Thirds Mount Cameras (Black)"
B&H # SI6028DNM43B MFR # 350963, $209.00 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly short focal length, but a best price. But yeah, that Fstop? Doubt if you'll like it.]
[Final Correction: Yes it IS autofocus. Many apologies for the confusion, it is very late right now. ]

 

[petrochemist]

[Note: I have re-arranged the quotes.]

I would recommend against "Speedboosters" for still photography in general. You would need one properly matched to the specific lens and designed and made on a "cost is no object" basis. "Speedboosters" seem to be wonderful for video, but, video is very forgiving.

I've never tried a true Speedbooster, but I have used a budget focal reducer (the RJ version which was about 1/5 the price of the metabones model when I got it). All my shots with it have been with lenses that had to be adapted to its EF mount - I've used it with PK, M42, T2 & OM lenses and maybe a few other mounts.
Even my budget model works pretty well for stills over a wide range of lenses.

Here's one with a 50mm/1.4:
P1040586small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
(DOF too shallow for a good portrait IMO)

And a handheld shot with a 600mm/f8:
Supermoon pre-eclipse by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

Both shots with minimal processing (no sharpening etc)

 

[VidThreeNorth]

[Note: I have re-arranged the quotes.]

I would recommend against "Speedboosters" for still photography in general. You would need one properly matched to the specific lens and designed and made on a "cost is no object" basis. "Speedboosters" seem to be wonderful for video, but, video is very forgiving.

I've never tried a true Speedbooster, but I have used a budget focal reducer (the RJ version which was about 1/5 the price of the metabones model when I got it). All my shots with it have been with lenses that had to be adapted to its EF mount - I've used it with PK, M42, T2 & OM lenses and maybe a few other mounts.
Even my budget model works pretty well for stills over a wide range of lenses.

. . .

Both shots with minimal processing (no sharpening etc)

They look better than I would have expected. Eventually I will be getting one at least for video work, but I will try it for still too. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. . . .

 

[sergezap]

[Note: I have re-arranged the quotes.]
I think the equivalent M4:3 lens to a 135mm F2 would be about 65mm F1.4, and as far as I know, you're right. Regardless of particular "Bokeh style" and other quirks, that focal length and Fstop combination simply does not currently exist.

Please not again! ))) Equivalent in what? You can emulate angle of view and dof only.
Perspective is irrelevant to these. Perspective is about how 3d world looks in 2d projection.
Perspective depends from angular dimension of object, and perspective compression depends from local length.
You would get equivalent angle of view with perspective and distortions from your original lens.

I agree that speedboosters is a bad choice for "technical"photography. It's increases aberrations at least. But i need my own tests for portraiture.

P.S. LensBaby stuff is overpriced toys, imho.

 

[beagle100]

[Note: I have re-arranged the quotes.]

I would recommend against "Speedboosters" for still photography in general. You would need one properly matched to the specific lens and designed and made on a "cost is no object" basis. "Speedboosters" seem to be wonderful for video, but, video is very forgiving.

I've never tried a true Speedbooster, but I have used a budget focal reducer (the RJ version which was about 1/5 the price of the metabones model when I got it). All my shots with it have been with lenses that had to be adapted to its EF mount - I've used it with PK, M42, T2 & OM lenses and maybe a few other mounts.
Even my budget model works pretty well for stills over a wide range of lenses.

Here's one with a 50mm/1.4:
P1040586sall by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
(DOF too shallow for a good portrait IMO)

And a handheld shot with a 600mm/f8:
Supermoon pre-eclipse by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

Both shots with minimal processing (no sharpening etc)

I would probably not use a "speedbooster" or lensbaby

mirrorless moon shot f9 @ 600mm (with a tripod)
Untitled by c w, on Flickr

 

[VidThreeNorth]

@sergezap:

Sorry. There has been a lot written in this topic and I got confused about who wrote what. Clearly you were commenting about other lens characteristics.

@Derrel:

Actually, the point I tried to make (with an error in my above post) was that you can generally match the DOF characteristic at the focal length if you use the "formula" correctly. The point is that you do NOT match the focal length and the F-stop. As you know, the smaller sensor and lens will give greater DOF. What you do is you decide the angle of view and DOF you want in the picture and then chose a body + lens that can give that result. The necessary F-stop will be a lower number on the smaller sensor. But if you match it that way, you get those characteristics. You also end up with more light, which might or might not work out. If it is within the camera's ISO range you can even match the exposure time, but if not, then you will have to speed it up. If you cannot speed it up, then you might need ND filters.

If anyone tries speed-boosters on M4:3 though, you also have to be careful to buy the right type. Some are being made with APS-C to Full Frame conversion lenses. I think there are also M4:3 to APS-C conversion lenses (I'm not sure about that). If you want a M4:3 to Full Frame conversion lens, well, you will want to make sure that it is what you are buying.