Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: barryfitzgerald on February 03, 2015, 03:34:37 pm
-
I've been playing with ILC's from various makers for a while now, picking up an adapter for my A mount lenses
A few things have struck me spending a bit of time with these types of cameras.
Firstly the "no viewfinder" models are simply not well suited to anything other than a small pancake or possibly "more compact" kit lens. The X-M1 I have is quite good, but using the adapter it was a disaster for camera shake, so I acquired an X-E1 which does have a viewfinder.
This body is better, I also prefer the jpeg output and it's better for using the lenses I have. But I'm also losing quite a bit for a few reasons
1: None of the Fuji bodies have IBIS, and so far no primes are stabilised this isn't the end of the world but it does really hurt things esp for longer focal lengths
2: Fuji are lying through their teeth on their ISO ratings, I did a controlled test v my A Mount bodies and the Fuji bodies are about a stop off, thus ISO 1600 on the A mount bodies is approx ISO 3200 on the Fuji near enough (looking at the actual exposure luminance) once I factor in IBIS I am at a disadvantage using Fuji in lower light levels
3: As soon as you start to mount heavier/longer lenses and plonk a flash on top the body becomes quite unbalanced really not comfortable at all. I do have a few grips for my SLR bodies I do use them if I'm doing this ie flash and lenses or portrait work, if not I take them off either way they are more "comfy"
It's not that I don't like the Fuji's (trying to sell the X-M1 as it's not really needed it's worth next to nothing anyway people can't seem to give them away)
I think the industry has to realise where to really push these cameras and I think they're a backward step in handing for some types of shooting. In the 70's and early 80's the SLR style was one with next to no grip this evolved over time to the current "grip" and body shape for ergonomic reasons I feel. The E mount cameras I've tried have the same problems small grips, the lower end bodies have no VF at all (which is nuts)
I can't honestly say I would switch to mirrorless..I see the biggest appeal as being able to "re-use" my lenses on a different mount and that's mostly it. That is handy as a spare body option (for the small price of an adapter) erm and that's about it really. If I really want a compact camera to take out for the day I take my erm compact camera (premium compact) I think makers forgot people have hands, you hold and use these cameras you can only get so small. I'll continue to play with ILC models but until makers can really deliver a good range of pancake primes it's really an inferior solution for many shooters.
Just my take..I think the move to mirrorless is a lot more about cutting costs than a revolution some say it is
-
Can't say I've paid much attention to whatever hype there may be…IMO equating mirrorless tech with revolution is a bit much. :) There is for sure a cost-saving angle to using an EVF rather than a mirror/prism setup. But personally I don't care about that. I've felt EVFs were a better way of doing finders since first using 'em in early 1990s videocams. Those finders were poor in terms of implementation—low res, muddy tonality, noisy—but the concept was great, and I figured the quality would improve soon enough. This took longer than I'd expected but current EVFs, particularly the one in Olympus' E-M1, are really good.
For me, being able to see b&w in the finder when I take pics with b&w in mind is a joy. Same with dead-accurate manual focus. Same with using zebras or other high/low-light clipping indicators to fine tune exposure. I stay away from the too-small cameras and especially from those lacking an eye-level VF. The E-M1 handles well and feels good in the hand, though if I had my way it'd be ~5% larger. Sony's A7 series bodies remind me feel-wise of my Nikon FTn (not the most comfortable camera ever made), though the new A7ii looks like an improvement. The Fujis I can't say much about. I have an X-E1 but never really bonded with it…and was using it only as an M mount platform (via adapter) anyway.
IMO it's inevitable CaNikon will get serious about EVF-based EF & F mount cameras. So if current mirrorless options aren't your thing, you can always wait awhile and see what develops.
-Dave-
-
Let me put it simply. As my friends from the UK would say, "different horses for different courses". There is no one perfect camera for all situations. Print your statement and post it on your wall. Over the next few years see how it holds true.
-
I guess it depends on what you want and expect out of a mirrorless camera, or a full system. I've used Panasonic Micro 4/3, Sony, and Fuji, and I've seen advantages and disadvantages to each of them. Sure, if one believes the camera makers' hype ("fastest autofocus ever!") one might be disappointed, but every camera maker hypes their new camera as the latest and greatest; that's not limited to one segment.
For many people, a simple mirrorless kit is probably all the camera they need. For some professionals this may be true as well. For most serious photogs and professionals, mirrorless can be a good second or third system for certain kinds of photography.
I shoot about 80% of my paid work and all of my personal work with a Fuji system. The system has some serious limitations, but as long as I work within them, I get results that make me happy. (The other 20% is work that requires lighting or fast action.) I will say that I tried some adapted lenses and never got great results, while the Fuji native lenses, especially the primes, are just outstanding.
-
I have a Panasonic GH4. It's a bit like those plastic 50mm lenses from Nikon or Canon which retail for $100. When I first looked at it, it was clear that this is a POS. When I picked it up, I realized it's actually well built, but it feels like a toy. When I looked through the ridiculous little EVF finder, I laughed. When I saw my first movies, I fell off my chair.
Edmund
-
Mirrorless cameras are a Godsend for me.
I used to have 35mm film SLR's, compacts and RF's and I was happy enough but when I went digital I ended up with big fat and heavy kit that I came to detest. It (the camera and lens package) was much bigger and heavier than a 35mm film set up and much more attention grabbing, both of these are big negatives for me.
When MFT came along I jumped on a Panasonic GF1+20mm f1.7 and I initially loved it but I soon decided that I wanted an EVF so out it went to be replaced with a G1 which I still have. I've since added a GX7 and in between I bought a Sony A7 and once I got that the big fat 5D and lenses went and I can't see myself going back to a conventional DSLR setup for a couple of reasons...
1. The mirrorless kit is much closer to the bulk and even the weight of a 35mm setup.
2. EVF technology and the advantages it offers have won me over and going back to an OVF is not something that I want to do.
Mirrorless may not be for everyone but so far it's for me and I just can't see myself buying back into DSLR's.
-
For me, the only disadvantage of a mirrorless camera over a conventional SLR is the worse AF performance and the (slight) lag in the viewfinder. Not great for sports, but I am sure this will change in the future. For everything else I much prefer it to the OVF.
I do agree, though, the camera makers need to get away from the mirrorless=small paradigm, especially for full-frame cameras.
-
I think the only think lacking mirroless is a complete fullframe prosystem. As we have the Canon and Nikon DSLR system.
There are many advantages: easier to build- EVF- absolutely silent- no shutter/mirror vibration, lighter, more robust ( due to less mechanical parts)
AF will be better too, more frames/sec etc...
It is just a matter of time... Nikon already has the V-series to practice with.
(downside will be the lack of the nice 'looking through the lens'...)
-
For me, the only disadvantage of a mirrorless camera over a conventional SLR is the worse AF performance and the (slight) lag in the viewfinder. Not great for sports, but I am sure this will change in the future. For everything else I much prefer it to the OVF.
I do agree, though, the camera makers need to get away from the mirrorless=small paradigm, especially for full-frame cameras.
For what I do AF isn't that important bar some reasonable accuracy
Regarding the "EVF" I already have SLT cameras (and OVF ones too) bar the light loss of that mirror, taking into account the IBIS and fudged ISO ratings Fuji use I'm not getting better low light performance from Fuji. Dynamic range is good on both sensors, somewhat better on the Fuji's (the Sony sensor is still excellent here though)
I'll keep the X-E1 in the bag it's handy to have, as far as switching there isn't really any incentive, nor much pull for buying more Fuji lenses
If Fuji had IBIS it would help, the form factor doesn't work well for larger or heavier lenses, and the new 16-55mm F2.8's lack of OIS is another nail in the might switch coffin esp since my Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 "is stabilised" on my A mount bodies it's also a lot smaller and much lighter than the Fuji lens.
I'm not knocking the concept of ILC's they are useful, but the notion they somehow meet the needs of SLR users is wildly optimistic at best
-
Well, as with any type of camera, there are different types, and sizes, of MILCs. Your XE1 is a toy, compared to something like the XT1, OMD1, or GH4. These are larger and more robust.
Of course, to use them with longer or heavier lenses, and in portrait mode, it is much better to attach the respective grips.
Of course, if you value IBIS, then the Fuji is the wrong system to start with...
-
I recently bought an A7r for use with legacy shift lenses for architectural photography, and it certainly seems to do the job quite well - in many ways it does it a bit better than a full mirror-type DSLR as it's smaller and lighter, and has good zebras and contrast-detection manual focus assist.
I can't say I'm exactly in love with it, though - ergonomically it's crude and finicky, and it's always a relief to use it on a tripod again after any hand-held session. Fortunately, that was always my intention - an A7 would probably be much better for handheld work.
So for me it's a tool which does a particular job for a good price, and for which there was previously no real contender.
I still prefer using film in a technical camera, though - my other, older option. And I still think I get better results from scanned medium format film - it just takes an awfully long time to get a good digital file ready for publication that way. One day I may have an Alpa!! ;)
-
I'm not knocking the concept of ILC's they are useful, but the notion they somehow meet the needs of SLR users is wildly optimistic at best
A few years ago DSLR's were pretty much the camera of choice for almost every serious photographer on the planet. A few professionals and amateurs used Medium Format, and a very few rangefinders like Leica etc.
DSLR's were promoted for every type of photography from large commercial jobs to parents shooting their children. They are great system cameras and with a huge range of lenses and accessories can be made to do almost everything.
But - are they really ideal for everything? No, I don't think they are. Too many fixate on trying to have a camera that can do anything instead of getting one that serves their own purpose best. Mirrorless are excellent for a big range of photography for a number of reasons, two important ones being they are small and light, and an EVF is much better than many of the small OVF's found in cheaper DSLR's. EVF's have advantages over OVF in high end cameras too. Most amateur photographers I know do not need a DSLR and many/most are trading them in rapidly and going to m4/3 and Fuji.
Jim
-
For many years, I’ve been shooting with Canon 35mm SLRs, then various D-SLRs and finally with the 5D and 5D Mk III which I still have and use – but increasingly less often. In recent months, I’ve bought a Fujifilm X-Pro1 and X-T1 with four lenses. My goal is to evaluate, if the X-System can substitute for my Canon gear and I could make the switch to a light system with smaller body and lenses.
I’ve found that IQ is good enough for my landscapes and macros. Prints up to A2 size look fine and I can’t notice any quality differences between images shot with my Canon and Fujifilm systems. I absolutely adore the handling of the X-T1!!! It reminds me of analog days, when lenses had aperture rings. There are a few handling differences I’m still evaluating as well as the major lack of macro lenses for the X-System at this time. (I really like my Canon 180 and 65mm macros.) The system is growing nicely and surely Fujifilm will offer more lenses to my taste in the foreseeable future.
I’ve allowed myself until springtime before making a final choice whether to switch systems or not. If I do, then the lighter rucksack will be very welcome! :)
-
With all due respect, I think your opinions may be mostly the result of the mirrorless cameras you have used. Just being "mirrorless" is meaningless, hell, my cell phone is mirrorless! The real question, I think, is how you like a carefully chosen, high-end mirrorless. For me this meant the Panasonic G3 first and the Olympus E-M1 now (both MFT cameras).
For me, the big deal is the reduction of bulk and weight. As an example, a few years ago I went on an eco tour in Nicaragua and my G3 kit with 3 lenses gave me a 35mm eqiv focal length range of 14 to 600mm in a compact and light bundle that I could easily carry in a small backpack while trekking thru jungles. Can you imagine the size and weight (not to mention cost) of the equivalent full-frame Nikon kit? Likewise, the E-m1 with 2 lenses journeyed with me to Japan a few months ago with a 24-400mm eqiv range, easily carried and very capable. BTW, the E-M1 has IBIS and some really great lenses available.
So, are mirrorless cameras a "revolution?" No, I don't think so - that is advertising and columnist BS. But they have become a serious alternative for thos photographers who want excellent image quality with lowered cost, bulk, and weight.
-
I'm not knocking the concept of ILC's they are useful, but the notion they somehow meet the needs of SLR users is wildly optimistic at best
I agree, the Fuji X system is not a complete replacement for a DSLR system, but then neither would be a medium format camera. For what it does, however, it meets the my needs completely; for some applications it is better than my Nikon system. In any case, don't judge the mirrorless technology by the cameras currently available. The mirrorless technology, ie the replacement of the mirror box with an EVF, in my opinion, is greatly superior than the OVFs on find on modern DSLRs. It is just a matter of time before someone brings out a full-sized system.
All IMO.
-
I'm not knocking the concept of ILC's they are useful, but the notion they somehow meet the needs of SLR users is wildly optimistic at best
I was looking at the Burning Man pictures taken by Eric Bouvet with an X-Pro1 over the weekend:
http://ericbouvet.com/Burning-Man
Quite frankly, if it works for him (5 World Press Awards) why would it not work for most of us...?
-
Although I was surprised by the new 16-55 an no OIS, overall the Fuji system has worked well for my style of shooting.
My single biggest issue, the lack of a quality raw converter. I realize Iridient does a great job, but for me it lacks any tools and I have never been able to output from it as DNG, so I could then open in LR.
LR, consistently shows problems with converting the finer details, for example bare tree branches against a blue sky. In the parts of the file that have the finer limbs, you see a strange red smudging that only gets worse. I also see LR start to halo pretty quickly when much sharpening is applied. C1 does OK, but it also can't pull the details from the files that they are capable of. Photo Ninja works good, but it's will also add some false details pretty quickly plus the workflow from LR to PN and back pretty much sucks IMO. After the image comes back from PN it's a tiff so all the raw capabilities are lost.
I doubt that LR 6 will improve on this, so the whole raw conversion issue is my hangup.
Love the camera, love the lenses, love the form factor.
Maybe someday the raw conversion issues will improve.
Paul
-
A family member has a Fuji, and ditto on the above message for a good raw converter. If I am wrong, would love to be set right by somebody. :)
Overall, in good hands, the new mirrorless systems are amazing. I have seen billboards where the photograph was taken by a mirrorless camera and it was not full frame sensor for sure on that camera. The skill of the photographer cannot be replaced by technology, IMO.
Why I do not use one, and why I do not like them boils down to asthetics and a few other features. Your mileage can and will vary.
First off, I have an eye problem - extreme sensitivity to bright light. I have to wear sunglasses inside under some artificial lighting for example. For the life of me, even trying several different types of glass and filters on the eye side, I just cannot take to the electronic viewfinder. I much prefer the "real" sight/viewfinder of a SLR, digital or film. Also, for what it is worth, I seldom use live view on any of my DSLRs too. But that is a medical issue with just me and maybe not too many other people.
The second issue is battery life. ON all cameras, DSLR to several compact systems, auto focus, IS or VR, GPS, bluetooth and/or wifi, etc, etc, all chew up battery power pretty fast. For me, and again, your experience will differ, I find using manual focus lenses (mostly Zeiss) on my D700 and D800, with almost everything else turned off, really gives me a long battery life for shooting. ON a proportional basis, I find on the few I have used or tried, batteries can be depleted pretty fast on some of these compact systems.
But the bottom line is better to have any camera than no camera, and if you do not or cannot carry around a full sized DSLR, then these compact systems can be a great thing to have. Use the tools you need to get the job done and pay the bills is what it is all about.
-
A family member has a Fuji, and ditto on the above message for a good raw converter. If I am wrong, would love to be set right by somebody. :)
If you phrase it like that you are wrong... :)
As mentioned above by Paul, Iridient does a really great job as a pure raw converter but it doesn't have the tools of LR and it is Mac only.
Depending on your workflow that works for you or it doesn't.
The second issue is battery life. ON all cameras, DSLR to several compact systems, auto focus, IS or VR, GPS, bluetooth and/or wifi, etc, etc, all chew up battery power pretty fast. For me, and again, your experience will differ, I find using manual focus lenses (mostly Zeiss) on my D700 and D800, with almost everything else turned off, really gives me a long battery life for shooting. ON a proportional basis, I find on the few I have used or tried, batteries can be depleted pretty fast on some of these compact systems.
Battery life on the Sony's definitely sucks and even with Airplane Mode turned on it still sucks.
That being said, the batteries are small and not too expensive, so in real life carrying multiple batteries is not too much of a hassle.
-
The A7's could do with better batteries but...
The first thing I did was go through the menu and turn anything I didn't need off and that includes the rear screen. If you cycle through display options the rear screen will go blank but it clearly isn't off and turning it off seems only possible in the menu. When out with the camera I also turn it off if I'm not going to be shooting for a few minutes and when I get home I take the battery out of the camera.
Those little measures seem to give me easily enough battery life for a day out. I'm not a machine gunner and probably won't approach 300 shots but between 100 and 200 would be pretty normal and the A7's battery is more than adequate for that. I take a spare with me but so far I've never needed it.
Yes, they could do with more battery life but personally the current battery life isn't a major issue for me.
-
I don't see your criticisms as criticisms of the mirrorless approach, rather as critcism of particular camera models.
I have an XE1 and I think it is a lovely camera: light, capable, not too small. I like the control layout and the minimalist viewfinder display (one thing I hate about my panasonics is that you can't display the essential viewfinder info without covering the screen with loads of irrelevant and confusing icons. You should be able to specify in the set up menu exactly what viewfinder icons and readouts you want and where they should display - it only needs a bit of programming). But....
... the shape of the XE1 only really suits small, light lenses. Larger, front heavy lenses spoil the feel because it lacks a DSLR bulky grip unless you start bolting on extras (and if you that, why not just get a DSLR).
For me, so far the best compromise form factor I've found is the Lumix G6. It is shaped like a DSLR (but with a flattened prism hump) despite being small and light. The 45-150 lens I use on it is stabilised, weighs nothing and is perfectly balanced. For really big, pro style lenses, the DSLR is still the answer.
I've been playing with ILC's from various makers for a while now, picking up an adapter for my A mount lenses
A few things have struck me spending a bit of time with these types of cameras.
Firstly the "no viewfinder" models are simply not well suited to anything other than a small pancake or possibly "more compact" kit lens. The X-M1 I have is quite good, but using the adapter it was a disaster for camera shake, so I acquired an X-E1 which does have a viewfinder.
This body is better, I also prefer the jpeg output and it's better for using the lenses I have. But I'm also losing quite a bit for a few reasons
1: None of the Fuji bodies have IBIS, and so far no primes are stabilised this isn't the end of the world but it does really hurt things esp for longer focal lengths
2: Fuji are lying through their teeth on their ISO ratings, I did a controlled test v my A Mount bodies and the Fuji bodies are about a stop off, thus ISO 1600 on the A mount bodies is approx ISO 3200 on the Fuji near enough (looking at the actual exposure luminance) once I factor in IBIS I am at a disadvantage using Fuji in lower light levels
3: As soon as you start to mount heavier/longer lenses and plonk a flash on top the body becomes quite unbalanced really not comfortable at all. I do have a few grips for my SLR bodies I do use them if I'm doing this ie flash and lenses or portrait work, if not I take them off either way they are more "comfy"
It's not that I don't like the Fuji's (trying to sell the X-M1 as it's not really needed it's worth next to nothing anyway people can't seem to give them away)
I think the industry has to realise where to really push these cameras and I think they're a backward step in handing for some types of shooting. In the 70's and early 80's the SLR style was one with next to no grip this evolved over time to the current "grip" and body shape for ergonomic reasons I feel. The E mount cameras I've tried have the same problems small grips, the lower end bodies have no VF at all (which is nuts)
I can't honestly say I would switch to mirrorless..I see the biggest appeal as being able to "re-use" my lenses on a different mount and that's mostly it. That is handy as a spare body option (for the small price of an adapter) erm and that's about it really. If I really want a compact camera to take out for the day I take my erm compact camera (premium compact) I think makers forgot people have hands, you hold and use these cameras you can only get so small. I'll continue to play with ILC models but until makers can really deliver a good range of pancake primes it's really an inferior solution for many shooters.
Just my take..I think the move to mirrorless is a lot more about cutting costs than a revolution some say it is
-
I have stopped my expectation that there is one camera that's ideal under all circumstances and can meet all my personal needs (and even those are limited)
I have fully embraced mirrorless, both as a small/lightweight system as well as "digital backs" for all kind of heritage glass (heck, even some projector lenses have so much character that you can make nice photo's with them).
But I agree with others it's not a revolution and I still use my DSLR for the cases a mirrorless doesn't cut it or isn't practical. Some find this a pity, but I don't, it's just more kit we can play with, test, abuse and use ;)
-
I'm not sure the points being made are sinking it (appreciate views will differ)
Some of the lenses coming out are actually bigger than their equivalent DSLR offerings, it's not me designing the lenses but Fuji. This also applies to Sony too, just about every lens they have for their E mount is heavier and larger than their DSLR counterpart.
I picked up a few X bodies to play around and have fun, and I like them. What gets me is this kind of marketing from Fuji..
It's just a million miles from the truth my camera bag won't be much lighter with Fuji X, only the bodies
One example a fairly popular "day trip lens"
Sony 18-135mm, 76mm x 86mm which is 395g
FUJINON XF18-135mm, 75.7mm x 97.8mm is 490g
-
It's just a million miles from the truth my camera bag won't be much lighter with Fuji X, only the bodies
One example a fairly popular "day trip lens"
Sony 18-135mm, 76mm x 86mm which is 395g
FUJINON XF18-135mm, 75.7mm x 97.8mm is 490g
Its not an apples to apple comparison. Sure, the Sony is lighter but the designs are different. Is 95g really a deal breaker for you??? Vote with your $$$. Buy the gear that you think will work best for you. Hopefully you'll not succumb to the marketing hype from anyone but rather use your own common sense.
Sony
15 elements in 13 groups, including 3 aspheric and 2 ED glass elements
Fuji
16 elements in 12 groups, including 4 aspherical elements and 2 anomalous dispersion lenses
+ weather sealing
-
I find it interesting that this entire thread has missed an important point that I, too, missed for a long time - WYSIWYG. With a mirrorless, if you set your exposure for, say -1EV, your viewfinder darkens by 1EV and you see a dark image. Take the shot and compare the playback with the image in the viewfinder and you will see that the viewfinder and the photo are exactly the same.
Upon learning this, I messed around with it for a while and it is true. What you see in the viewfinder is what you get in your image. You may dial in some EV adjustment to allow for ETTR, but still, what you see is what you get.
When you use an optical viewfinder, you see what the ambient light looks like, but you have no idea what the camera is going to capture. When you are shooting in difficult lighting situations, this is a huge disadvantage. A mirrorless camera essentially renders light meters obsolete. Just use your viewfinder image plus the histogram (which is displayed in real time, in the viewfinder) and you always have the right exposure. You can't do this with an optical viewfinder.
-
Its not an apples to apple comparison. Sure, the Sony is lighter but the designs are different. Is 95g really a deal breaker for you??? Vote with your $$$. Buy the gear that you think will work best for you. Hopefully you'll not succumb to the marketing hype from anyone but rather use your own common sense.
Sony
15 elements in 13 groups, including 3 aspheric and 2 ED glass elements
Fuji
16 elements in 12 groups, including 4 aspherical elements and 2 anomalous dispersion lenses
+ weather sealing
Having shot both I have to report that whilst the Sony lens doesn't have weather sealing it is actually optically the better of the two lenses
In relation to WYSIWYG I'm already there I have the SLT models and I have OVF ones too there is no advantage to be gained here either
Just struck me as odd that half the reason for ILC's is a more compact system, then they come out with "big" lenses for them. Sony's recent batch of E mount lenses follows the same theme. Very odd
-
I've been playing with ILC's from various makers for a while now, picking up an adapter for my A mount lenses
A few things have struck me spending a bit of time with these types of cameras.
Firstly the "no viewfinder" models are simply not well suited to anything other than a small pancake or possibly "more compact" kit lens. The X-M1 I have is quite good, but using the adapter it was a disaster for camera shake, so I acquired an X-E1 which does have a viewfinder.
This body is better, I also prefer the jpeg output and it's better for using the lenses I have. But I'm also losing quite a bit for a few reasons
1: None of the Fuji bodies have IBIS, and so far no primes are stabilised this isn't the end of the world but it does really hurt things esp for longer focal lengths
2: Fuji are lying through their teeth on their ISO ratings, I did a controlled test v my A Mount bodies and the Fuji bodies are about a stop off, thus ISO 1600 on the A mount bodies is approx ISO 3200 on the Fuji near enough (looking at the actual exposure luminance) once I factor in IBIS I am at a disadvantage using Fuji in lower light levels
3: As soon as you start to mount heavier/longer lenses and plonk a flash on top the body becomes quite unbalanced really not comfortable at all. I do have a few grips for my SLR bodies I do use them if I'm doing this ie flash and lenses or portrait work, if not I take them off either way they are more "comfy"
It's not that I don't like the Fuji's (trying to sell the X-M1 as it's not really needed it's worth next to nothing anyway people can't seem to give them away)
I think the industry has to realise where to really push these cameras and I think they're a backward step in handing for some types of shooting. In the 70's and early 80's the SLR style was one with next to no grip this evolved over time to the current "grip" and body shape for ergonomic reasons I feel. The E mount cameras I've tried have the same problems small grips, the lower end bodies have no VF at all (which is nuts)
I can't honestly say I would switch to mirrorless..I see the biggest appeal as being able to "re-use" my lenses on a different mount and that's mostly it. That is handy as a spare body option (for the small price of an adapter) erm and that's about it really. If I really want a compact camera to take out for the day I take my erm compact camera (premium compact) I think makers forgot people have hands, you hold and use these cameras you can only get so small. I'll continue to play with ILC models but until makers can really deliver a good range of pancake primes it's really an inferior solution for many shooters.
Just my take..I think the move to mirrorless is a lot more about cutting costs than a revolution some say it is
Well, convert a Leica M6 to digital and it is mirroless. Can you get a better pedigree? The big deal with mirrorless is compact footprint. I could not use a dslr for this.
http://danielteolijrlep6.tumblr.com/image/85154193735
Sure you can use your giant dslr for the 'lost princess' But if your a male, can you go around day and night sticking your monster dslr in the face of kids 2 to 3 feet away and not be challenged as a pedophile?
I can cause I shoot mirrorless. And don't forget having to lug your giant dslr on your wrist day and night. Too heavy for me anyway. I seldom use a shoulder strap. I keep my cam in hand at almost all times. I still use a dslr but just for sports or macro, but that is very seldom.
DSLR was too big for the night stealth work like this....all mirrorless.
nsfw
http://dewallenrld.tumblr.com/
I'v been 95% mirrorless for 3 years +...love em! Just wish they made an affordable Japanese Leica knockoff for $2500 and a M43 with manual controls like a shutter speed dial.
-
It is useful to have a smaller body, but not all DSLR's are massive I have both of these cameras
Granted the X-M1 I have is much smaller, but it does not have a viewfinder which is a problem for some types of shooting
The Fuji is a bit smaller the X-E1, and lighter but the other camera isn't that big either. Once you factor in the lens size I don't really save that much camera bag space.
I like being able to fit in an X mount body into the bag (as a third body) if I replaced my set up with X mount only I'd save very little space or weight overall
Not putting it down but I think the size advantages are somewhat overplayed. If I were shooting Canon then it might be more obvious (their lenses are bigger generally)
Some of the lenses I have are impossibly small the Minolta 24-105mm F3.5-F4.5 71 x 69 mm and 395g, and it's a full frame lens. Maybe Fuji and Sony should hire some ex Minolta lens designers :o
Here compared to the Canon
http://gattos.exblog.jp/9087560
Granted not sealed and slightly slower, but an incredible achievement in size reduction
-
The weight advantage is in the lower focal lengths.
Lately Fuji is more focused on the quality than size; if you compare to the top DSLR lenses which the latest releases are supposed to replace they still have a size advantage but it's decreasing.
It's ok as they offer the light alternative also but they need to work more on ergonomics (bigger grip) and focus if they really want to compete.
The m43 seems to keep a larger advantage in the telephoto range also although I didn't look too much as I don't have one and I might get tempted (again).
-
Right now? There are minimal tangible benefits over an slr other than weight/size which is why most use them as a second camera to an slr system. The systems are still expensive too.
The benefits though in the future are promising: on chip focus points covering more of the frame, focus peaking, constant focus tracking, live histograms/exposure preview etc. these would only increase with electronic shutters too.
There is little question the slr will die but we are looking at highly evolved (slr) vs new tech (mirorless)
-
It's just a million miles from the truth my camera bag won't be much lighter with Fuji X, only the bodies
One example a fairly popular "day trip lens"
Sony 18-135mm, 76mm x 86mm which is 395g
FUJINON XF18-135mm, 75.7mm x 97.8mm is 490g
The Fuji is really a 27-206mm equivalent. I am not sure you can really compare...
The weight advantage is in the lower focal lengths.
I would tend to agree here.
I have Fuji 4 primes (14, 23, 35 and 56mm) and as far as weight, size and image quality goes it is all good in my book.
i don't tend to buy zooms or long lenses but some of the ones I have seen look very unbalanced on such a small body.
The systems are still expensive too.
A6000 with 2 kit zooms for $700-800, that's not too bad...
I don't believe Fuji or Olympus will be able to maintain their current prices.
I am sure Sony will eventually put out a FF entry-level system for around $1K, putting Fuji and Olympus under pressure.
-
I think that mirrorless is a sort of revolution or at least the evolutionary equivalent to the Cambrian explosion. ;D You know, punctuated equilibrium and all that.
I think the move to on-sensor AF is revolutionary. And while it isn't yet up to good DSLR standards in terms of speed, it is in many ways more accurate overall than other more conventional systems when it locks focus.
I don't buy, however, the whole WYSIWYG argument via the EVF. Even the best EVF is a horror outdoors in daylight. Try WYSIWYG-ing to open up the horribly blocked-up shadows in the EVF, using your exposure or comp., and see what the file looks like. In this regard, EVF/mirrorless has a LONG way to go, IMO. It is good enough to "tolerate and work around" but nothing more. And I don't think having the plethora of on-screen information compensates a bit - in fact I often find myself turning it all off so that I can see "what's out there" enough to make a decent composition.
What I can say is this, even with "big lenses" on my Fuji X-T1 (e.g. the 10-24 and 40-150) the direct comparison in weight and bulk in "angle of view" equivalent for my FF system yields a HUGE difference that "pictures of them side by side" does nothing to illustrate. The FF is massive in-hand and very much bulkier and heavier.
And, I just completed a comparison test of my 20+ MP FF gear against the Fuji X-T1 in print sizes up to 17x25 (as large as I usually print w/o having stitched frames) and the Fuji is easily the equivalent and in some instances better in tonal transition and detail rendering.
And, I have from 15mm to 320mm equivalent range in lenses, and two bodies w/ battery grips in one small backpack style bag. It isn't "light" but it is a heck-of-a-lot-lighter and way less bulky than the two bags required to contain my equivalent FF system with only one body.
Horses for courses, of course.
And, finally, these days when I need the "big gun" in terms of resolution and detail rendering, I reach for one my three stupid little Sigma DP Merrill cameras - which kick butt on both the APS-C system and the FF system (assuming that I'm using them like mini tech cameras - SLOW and deliberate).
It is a wonderful world we're living in as far as technology goes. I'm glad I've lived long enough to play in it.
Rand
-
I think that mirrorless is a sort of revolution or at least the evolutionary equivalent to the Cambrian explosion. ;D You know, punctuated equilibrium and all that.
I think the move to on-sensor AF is revolutionary. And while it isn't yet up to good DSLR standards in terms of speed, it is in many ways more accurate overall than other more conventional systems when it locks focus.
I don't buy, however, the whole WYSIWYG argument via the EVF. Even the best EVF is a horror outdoors in daylight. Try WYSIWYG-ing to open up the horribly blocked-up shadows in the EVF, using your exposure or comp., and see what the file looks like. In this regard, EVF/mirrorless has a LONG way to go, IMO. It is good enough to "tolerate and work around" but nothing more. And I don't think having the plethora of on-screen information compensates a bit - in fact I often find myself turning it all off so that I can see "what's out there" enough to make a decent composition.
What I can say is this, even with "big lenses" on my Fuji X-T1 (e.g. the 10-24 and 40-150) the direct comparison in weight and bulk in "angle of view" equivalent for my FF system yields a HUGE difference that "pictures of them side by side" does nothing to illustrate. The FF is massive in-hand and very much bulkier and heavier.
And, I just completed a comparison test of my 20+ MP FF gear against the Fuji X-T1 in print sizes up to 17x25 (as large as I usually print w/o having stitched frames) and the Fuji is easily the equivalent and in some instances better in tonal transition and detail rendering.
And, I have from 15mm to 320mm equivalent range in lenses, and two bodies w/ battery grips in one small backpack style bag. It isn't "light" but it is a heck-of-a-lot-lighter and way less bulky than the two bags required to contain my equivalent FF system with only one body.
Horses for courses, of course.
And, finally, these days when I need the "big gun" in terms of resolution and detail rendering, I reach for one my three stupid little Sigma DP Merrill cameras - which kick butt on both the APS-C system and the FF system (assuming that I'm using them like mini tech cameras - SLOW and deliberate).
It is a wonderful world we're living in as far as technology goes. I'm glad I've lived long enough to play in it.
Rand
I just did a bunch of shooting in fog with some sunlight coming in and out. Challenging light conditions. Used the EVF along with exposure compensation and it was a breeze to see and get the exposures I wanted. For me, I find the EVF a revolution to use compared to the OVF. As far as being hard to see...guess what, I cannot see the OVF in bright sun with my 5D2. I had to get an attachment which allows me to view the entire viewfinder in sunlight. I wear glasses, so that might be the cause.
-
The EVF's I've used can be hard to see in harsh lighting esp strong back-lighting. I have adapted to a degree with that though I feel the need to use an OVF to get that "it's real" feel at times.
Just to clarify I'm not having a dig at the ILC concept but there are drawbacks, and for me I don't see it as a desirable alternative to my current set up. It is useful to have a body in the bag, it's a bit different and I can fit one in there. If I replaced my set up, which can't really be done as Fuji don't have the lens range I would save a bit of space on bodies, but next to none weight and size wise with lenses.
For me it's a simple pros and cons for ILC and the disadvantages counter the advantages. The smaller bodies are offset with low battery life, less comfortable handling (esp with a flash mounted or heavier lenses) any of the EVF advantages are non existent as I'm using EVF's on the SLT Bodies. I lose a bit of light, but I gain IBIS making all my lenses even the primes stabilised that is a very significant factor to me, and unless Fuji can offer IBIS I wouldn't consider it viable as a replacement. It's fun to use and with an adapter I have another place to put my lenses. I would point out I've used newer bodies too the X-T1 is very good and I like it, but not enough to consider dumping my A Mount stuff. If you were using quite a few of the smaller primes and didn't need a broad range of longer lenses then the Fuji would be fine. Once you start using faster zooms that size point evaporates mostly
-
Just to clarify I'm not having a dig at the ILC concept but there are drawbacks, and for me I don't see it as a desirable alternative to my current set up.
Fair enough. Along the same lines:
http://inmybag.net/martin-gillman-2/
-
Fair enough. Along the same lines:
http://inmybag.net/martin-gillman-2/
Well, he writes a great deal but doesn't say much. Doesn't state anything substantial. I can't agree with him, that I'd need a dozen or more batteries for "a gig" (which is undefined. I've shot a whole weekend with my X-T1 using three batteries. My Canon 5D would require two - so what? I also can't agree, that the two (very generic comparison) are basically the same size with only a slight weight difference. I also notice a great difference when shooting on the street - with my X-T1 or X-Pro1, people aren't as intimidated as with the 5D.
I think it boils down to what a photographer enjoys personally and I'd hate to group people into D-SLR or Mirrorless users and judge them. Whatever floats your boat!
-
I think it boils down to what a photographer enjoys personally and I'd hate to group people into D-SLR or Mirrorless users and judge them. Whatever floats your boat!
Well said Mike, which is why I'm using both depending on what I want to do. I'm really convinced there is not a "one size fits all" (where "all" can stand for photographers as well as situations they might encounter). I just know that adding a mirrorless in your bag opens options that you don't have with a DSLR, but the reverse is also true, if you throw out your DSLR you're going to miss opportunities that are very hard to get with a mirrorless.
-
Nicely said, Mike.
Since acquiring my X-T1 and some XF lenses my Canon DSLRs have been relegated to high speed sports where AIServo and 2 CPUs are necessary and times when I need my long L lenses and a very fast AF. If nothing changes in Canonland before Fuji releases their 100-400 I may end up selling all my Canon DSLRs and lenses. No, I'm not interested in Canon's 50 MP sensors.
I truly like my X-T1's image quality, handling, size, weight and the ergonomics. My only wish at this point is that Fuji would somehow find a way to give me the functionality I get on the Canons with back button focusing.
edit: For me, my Fuji X-T1 beats my Canons in IQ and I believe it may be the lack of a AA filter. The Fuji non-Bayer sensor provides better color and sharpness IMHO. Yes, there are endless arguments about which RAW converter does the best job but in the end the final image is still better than what I can get with my Canons.
-
http://www.slrlounge.com/dslr-vs-mirrorless-cameras-future-of-photography/
-
If nothing changes in Canonland before Fuji releases their 100-400 I may end up selling all my Canon DSLRs and lenses.
Ron, I'm in the same situation. I've given myself another few months to decide. I've got four primes, need to pick up four more lenses, then I'll basically have a much smaller and lighter outfit than my Canon gear. And the X-T1 is more fun to use! Sadly, the 120 macro won't be released until next year and those photos I saw (at pdreview) don't show a tripod mount. And probably no manufacturer will ever build a lens similar to Canon's MPE 65mm.
But I'll be able to live with the changes. I've got an old Minolta MD bellows, some MD lenses and a Novoflex adapter which give decent macro results - while being awkward to use. Wow, I really used those bellows daily, years ago!
-
http://www.slrlounge.com/dslr-vs-mirrorless-cameras-future-of-photography/
The "real world" argument is endelessly repeated by EVF detractors:
"Given that today, digital technology is allowing us to see “through the lens” by viewing what the sensor sees, is there still a case for having mirrors in our cameras? Of course there is – some people still prefer being able to see “the real world” through the lens optically, rather than an LCD screen with the images on it. After all, we still wear glasses, not small LCD screens placed in front of our eyes, right?"
He even makes the comparision with glasses. Others say they prefer to see the real world through a window instead of using any electronic device. Great, I do prefer to look straight at the real world with my own eyes as well, without any electronic device in the middle. But a camera's VF doesn't exist to see and enjoy the real world, but to capture an image that will for sure differ from the real world. And it will differ much more as seen through a OVF than with a EVF.
I find OK that some prefer the OVF, but the "real world" argument doesn't make sense to me. I can see the so called real world with my eyes and my E-P5, just need to shift my eyes a couple of cms from the camera.
Regards
-
I can only speak for myself but I found it very difficult to use EVF's and it took a lot of time to get used to them. There is something to be said for a clean view of a subject (ie your eyes) and an optical finder it's just "pure" and devoid of distractions (least to me) But I'm mostly using EVF's now some great advantages but they can struggle in harsh lighting. Yes you can look away with your eyes I've even used the back LCD "Old style" looking down at that. It's a mixed bag the EVF's are getting better no question. I still like optical finders though
Battery life is a valid point the ILC's I've owned and used are way behind even the SLT Models I have which are sub DSLR battery performance are vastly superior to the Fuji's it could be an issue for longer shoots (weddings) you'd def need a fair few spares. All the Fuji's I've used have ho hum battery life under 50% of what I get now, if you're using a DSLR you can get over a 1000 shots a charge on the mid level ones and up.
-
But a camera's VF doesn't exist to see and enjoy the real world, but to capture an image that will for sure differ from the real world. And it will differ much more as seen through a OVF than with a EVF.
Yep, this is the clincher for me. I find the best current EVFs show me an image more like the photo data my cameras capture than do OVFs. And you can fine-tune EVFs. I suspect I was primed long ago for EVF use by reading Galen Rowell, picking up on his assertion that photographers should train themselves to see things the way their films do. Substitute "sensors" for "films," et voilà!
-Dave-
-
I don't buy, however, the whole WYSIWYG argument via the EVF. Even the best EVF is a horror outdoors in daylight. Try WYSIWYG-ing to open up the horribly blocked-up shadows in the EVF, using your exposure or comp., and see what the file looks like. In this regard, EVF/mirrorless has a LONG way to go, IMO. It is good enough to "tolerate and work around" but nothing more. And I don't think having the plethora of on-screen information compensates a bit - in fact I often find myself turning it all off so that I can see "what's out there" enough to make a decent composition.
Horrors in daylight? Blocked up shadows? Can't see enough to get the composition? Don't buy WYSIWYG?
I can't see how anyone can say that it's not a lot more WYSIWYG than any OVF system but reading internet forums often makes me wonder how experiences differ so much.
As I may have said before on this forum, I'd only go back to a conventional OVF DSLR if a gun was put to my head. Others are free to choose otherwise :D
-
I can only speak for myself but I found it very difficult to use EVF's and it took a lot of time to get used to them. There is something to be said for a clean view of a subject (ie your eyes) and an optical finder it's just "pure" and devoid of distractions (least to me) But I'm mostly using EVF's now some great advantages but they can struggle in harsh lighting. Yes you can look away with your eyes I've even used the back LCD "Old style" looking down at that. It's a mixed bag the EVF's are getting better no question. I still like optical finders though
I have a technical background and maybe that allowed me to adopt EVF's easier and now I wouldn't want to go back.
I do disagree with the idea that OVF are pure as mine were constantly full of debris and once or twice there were things crawling around in there and then there's the difference between what I saw when I looked through my Canon DSLR's and what I saw on the back screen. Such was the difference that I often had to take the shot again. If dust, hairs, bugs and little relation to the final image are purity I'm happy to leave it to others :D
-
The advantage of an OVF Is that your eyes has massive DR, an EVF does not that can be useful in some situations.
There are certainly strong and weak points to both, the ideal scenario would be a combination of both a hybrid OVF/EVF
However it is quite wrong for some folks to suggest the EVF is some kind of miracle "solve all wonder" solution it has drawbacks too, and some very good strong points.
The weedy battery performance of ILC's though is a notable negative. The biggest strength is being able to use other non OEM lenses. But I can't help but wonder that kills lens sales for the maker. For example if I bought an E mount body I can use adapters for all my lenses even get AF if I wanted, there would be almost no incentive to buy Sony lenses for that mount..none. I think Fuji and Sony are overcharging on some of their lenses which drags the appeal down.
Ultimately though the smaller form factor is a mixed one for handling and comfort. I'll continue to use an ILC body in addition to my DSLR outfit but that's about it really I won't be investing in a new mount.
-
Ref. OVF vs. EVF, recently I was testing my new Sony A7II, who arguably has one of the best EVFs in the business. The day was clear with fantastic blue sky, and cold and crispy weather. So sunlight was abundant, which sometimes turned the EVF a bit useless, as I could barely see what was in it, with the sun coming from the side or my back.
In the end, I just use what is available in the camera I like to use, and adjust to it and move on.
-
Fair enough. Along the same lines:
http://inmybag.net/martin-gillman-2/
LOL! The butthurt is strong in that one. So much sound and fury, and so little of substance.
-
Ref. OVF vs. EVF, recently I was testing my new Sony A7II, who arguably has one of the best EVFs in the business. The day was clear with fantastic blue sky, and cold and crispy weather. So sunlight was abundant, which sometimes turned the EVF a bit useless, as I could barely see what was in it, with the sun coming from the side or my back.
Yep, this can be an issue with the Sony A cameras. The best EVF contrast-wise I've used is the one in Olympus' E-M1 (and new E-M5ii). EVF tech isn't perfect but it is incrementally getting better.
-Dave-
-
I can only speak for myself but I found it very difficult to use EVF's and it took a lot of time to get used to them. There is something to be said for a clean view of a subject (ie your eyes) and an optical finder it's just "pure" and devoid of distractions (least to me) But I'm mostly using EVF's now some great advantages but they can struggle in harsh lighting. Yes you can look away with your eyes I've even used the back LCD "Old style" looking down at that. It's a mixed bag the EVF's are getting better no question. I still like optical finders though
Battery life is a valid point the ILC's I've owned and used are way behind even the SLT Models I have which are sub DSLR battery performance are vastly superior to the Fuji's it could be an issue for longer shoots (weddings) you'd def need a fair few spares. All the Fuji's I've used have ho hum battery life under 50% of what I get now, if you're using a DSLR you can get over a 1000 shots a charge on the mid level ones and up.
Sure sometimes they can be a problem. But so can the bulk of a dslr. It takes balance. There I no perfect cam.
-
LOL! The butthurt is strong in that one. So much sound and fury, and so little of substance.
+1, and so little common sense. How believable is a guy who first passionately wrote he abandoned DSLR's and then a few month later passionately moves back and abandons mirrorless. While in real life it's not an "either/or" decision, what's wrong with "and"?
-
Ref. OVF vs. EVF, recently I was testing my new Sony A7II, who arguably has one of the best EVFs in the business. The day was clear with fantastic blue sky, and cold and crispy weather. So sunlight was abundant, which sometimes turned the EVF a bit useless, as I could barely see what was in it, with the sun coming from the side or my back.
In the end, I just use what is available in the camera I like to use, and adjust to it and move on.
The partial solution to that is a deep eyecup unless you wear glasses. Oly has one that is great once you get used to it jamming into your eye. Fuji has left X-E2 users high and dry in that regard, I sometimes have to shoot one handed using the other hand to block the light.
-
The partial solution to that is a deep eyecup unless you wear glasses. Oly has one that is great once you get used to it jamming into your eye. Fuji has left X-E2 users high and dry in that regard, I sometimes have to shoot one handed using the other hand to block the light.
There is an optional deep eyecup for the Fuji X-T1 that works very well in preventing side/back light intrusion. I've put one in both my bodies, and they are very usable with eyeglasses. The EVF is still very poor in bright and or contrasty light. I like everything else about the camer "so much" that I put up with it, but I have not imbibed the EVF cool-aid.
Rand
-
There is an optional deep eyecup for the Fuji X-T1 that works very well in preventing side/back light intrusion.
Which makes the lack for the X-E2 even more galling. As with the recent firmware update, Fuji is treating the X-E2 like the bastard stepchild of the x sensor cameras.
-
I use both, I don't care as optical or electronic everything requires a rethink and workaround.
If I come from a session with optical finders and then use electronic I find the optical limited. Then again if I reverse the process I find electronic awkard, but with both after a period they just seem "normal".
What amazes me is how good and cheap some of these small cameras finders are.
An em5II sells for what? $1,000?
A decent viewfinder in the motion camera world goes for $3,000 to $5,000 minimum. Price out the new Gratical from Zacuto and it's no better than that little olympus and sells for 4x the cost.
BTW: Compare that to the previous Zacuto which sells for more than most of the cameras mentioned here and the earlier zacuto is very limited.
IMO
BC
-
What I don't understand is when someone complains that when they use an EVF that can't see shadow separation. I would have thought that is something you you sort out in post processing. Lack of DR is the problem for most cameras with respect to separation. In short, frame the image, shoot and think about the separation afterwards.
-
What I don't understand is when someone complains that when they use an EVF that can't see shadow separation. I would have thought that is something you you sort out in post processing. Lack of DR is the problem for most cameras with respect to separation. In short, frame the image, shoot and think about the separation afterwards.
The problem is sometimes in your very statement; ..."frame the image,"
Rand
-
The problem is.......
Rand
I think we all know that any advancement in capture devices is going to come from electronics.
The little mirrorless gh3/4, em1/5 have touch screens. It fabulous in finding all the setttings cameras offer and it's also flexible.
I guess it depends on what you want. If you want ovf they're all over the place and work well, though pretty much stuck in 2005 not 2015.
I think the point we all miss is the largest selling camera in the world in an iphone, so millions of young image makers are learning this way and they're not going to accept one purpose devices that only shoot a still, or won't do an auto panorama, or variable frame crops, or stabilized movies, instant effects and instant uploads.
I honestly believe if Apple came out with a high spec camera that synced to a mobile device, had a larger sensor size, some kind of fast zoom lens, it would dominate the lower spec market.
Don't misunderstand I love old analog style cameras like the Contax and even my Leica S2 and m8 and they do a amazing but very limited job and when you use one you know it.
So whether anyone wants-or likes electronic finders, menus that are touch screen, or even movie capabilities in a still camera, I think we should all realize those cameras are going the way of film.
IMO
BC
-
My first camera was a Speed Graphic 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 in 1951. I sold my 8x10, 5x7 and 4x5 a few years ago. I kept my 6x6 however. As a landscape photographer, my current favorite is the Sony A7R on a tripod. I use a right angle viewfinder at times when the sun makes the rear screen unreadable. It is a very worthy tool.
I sometimes miss not having the ground glass and the dark cloth, but I don't miss carrying the LF equipment.
-
On a side note our producer was in NY to do a quick fitting/casting.
She's not a photographer, doesn't have any interest in leaning cameras, so I set up an em-1 with the little clip on flash, set it to ai, set up the touch screen on the back and told her to shoot it like an iphone.
The results were great and other than change batteries all she had to do was take out the card, drop them into an ipad air, edit them down and well, done.
previously we've done this same type of casting with a crew of 4, so I guess this explains how the world is changing.
IMO
BC
-
On a side note our producer was in NY to do a quick fitting/casting.
She's not a photographer, doesn't have any interest in leaning cameras, so I set up an em-1 with the little clip on flash, set it to ai, set up the touch screen on the back and told her to shoot it like an iphone.
The results were great and other than change batteries all she had to do was take out the card, drop them into an ipad air, edit them down and well, done.
previously we've done this same type of casting with a crew of 4, so I guess this explains how the world is changing.
IMO
BC
Yup, sure does. And don't hear what I am saying as a denial of this, or as a "dis" to the concept of mirror-less and EVF. It is merely a statement reflecting the reality of the current state of EVFs. I still hate them in their current incarnation, but love (in my case) the Fuji X-T1 enough to have bought 2 of them and a small arsenal of good Fuji glass! I just don't buy the "EVF as the greatest thing since sliced-bread" in its current state of development and bristle a bit when those who have imbibed the cool-aid pretend that they are flawless and some sort of paragon of "seeing." They ain't - yet.
Rand
-
Quick update I've sold off one of my Fuji bodies and I'm down to just the XE-1 now.
I've no plans to invest in the system any more but I will keep a few lenses and that body plus the adapter so I can use my A mount lenses on the Fuji
Not enough "wow" for me with X mount heaps of potential but pricey lenses, no IBIS and nothing happening yet flash wise means it's not (for me) a viable switch scenario I'll keep an eye out and see what happens over time, and I will try to keep an X body around because I like the Fuji look and the company has some wonderful ideas they just don't quite have the whole thing nailed down as well as I would like
Once you've tasted IBIS going back isn't an option and when you have some of the vintage lenses I do it's both hard to part with them (if they deliver the goodies and they do for me)
At heart always a Minolta man loved their thinking and ideas and handling, I had hoped Fuji would be the next Minolta but I'll have to plug away with Sony for the time being
-
I will try to keep an X body around because I like the Fuji look and the company has some wonderful ideas they just don't quite have the whole thing nailed down as well as I would like
On dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0704217094/cp-2015-fujifilm-interview-our-lenses-are-waiting-for-higher-resolution-sensors) there is an interview with Toshihisa Iida, Sales & Marketing Manager with Fuji.
He figures that it will take another 2-3 years before the DSLR has no technical advantages anymore over the DSLR.
A fairly realistic estimate I believe.
That being said, for a lot of users mirrorless is already a viable or even preferable alternative right now for a variety of reasons.
Obviously everybody's mileage may vary...
-
On dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0704217094/cp-2015-fujifilm-interview-our-lenses-are-waiting-for-higher-resolution-sensors) there is an interview with Toshihisa Iida, Sales & Marketing Manager with Fuji.
He figures that it will take another 2-3 years before the DSLR has no technical advantages anymore over the DSLR.
A fairly realistic estimate I believe.
That being said, for a lot of users mirrorless is already a viable or even preferable alternative right now for a variety of reasons.
Obviously everybody's mileage may vary...
The interview was more open than most and I respect that, he did miss the glaring neglect of the flash system though and that is a factor for some buyers
But I think it is a mistake to assume any of the "not quite sure" points raised isn't based on a technical level be it AF or flash
The form factor isn't really suited to some users it's a simple as that really but there are others
Mirrorless brings additional problems to the table vignetting and distortion are much bigger issues due to the lens sitting so close to the sensor, even with these addressed with software for many users there are no obvious reasons to switch unless you collect some of the smaller prime lenses
It's not quite the magic bullet some makers would have folks believe.
-
The interview was more open than most and I respect that, he did miss the glaring neglect of the flash system though and that is a factor for some buyers
But I think it is a mistake to assume any of the "not quite sure" points raised isn't based on a technical level be it AF or flash
The form factor isn't really suited to some users it's a simple as that really but there are others
Mirrorless brings additional problems to the table vignetting and distortion are much bigger issues due to the lens sitting so close to the sensor, even with these addressed with software for many users there are no obvious reasons to switch unless you collect some of the smaller prime lenses
It's not quite the magic bullet some makers would have folks believe.
If you need the flash system, then not having it is indeed a glaring neglect. Otherwise you don't care.
I have had no issue with vignetting and distortions, whether this is due to some software magic or great lens design I do not know, nor do I care.
The reason for me to add the Fuji to my bag was that I simply like the files it produces. The fact that I can see the image in the EVF roughly the way it looks on my computer screen is very nice, too. But then, I am not a fan of the D800 OVF to begin with. And, for me, trying to do manual focus with an OVF an exercise in frustration.
Which is simply another way of saying that mirrorless has some advantages over a tradition SLR, and traditional SLRs have some advantages over mirrorless. What will make people switch in the future is that camera companies will stop producing mirror boxes to cut cost. On-chip AF might be another reason.
I wish there was a camera that was as good as its makers claim :)
-
The interview was more open than most and I respect that, he did miss the glaring neglect of the flash system though and that is a factor for some buyers
But I think it is a mistake to assume any of the "not quite sure" points raised isn't based on a technical level be it AF or flash
I don't see why. The Sony A6000 is said to have very fast AF. Fuji pretty quickly should be able to get there as well.
And a firmware for HSS support and a Fuji HSS flash have been rumored multiple times. I am sure it will be there soon.
For me personally, I don't use flash and the current AF is more than adequate for the subjects that I shoot.
The form factor isn't really suited to some users it's a simple as that really
The cameras are small. It definitely might take some time to get used to if you have big hands.
Mirrorless brings additional problems to the table vignetting and distortion are much bigger issues due to the lens sitting so close to the sensor, even with these addressed with software for many users there are no obvious reasons to switch unless you collect some of the smaller prime lenses
Vignetting and distortion has not been an issue for me with the X-Pro1/X-T1 and the lenses that I own (14, 23, 35, 56).
-
The form factor isn't really suited to some users it's a simple as that really but there are others
Mirrorless brings additional problems to the table vignetting and distortion are much bigger issues due to the lens sitting so close to the sensor, even with these addressed with software for many users there are no obvious reasons to switch unless you collect some of the smaller prime lenses
It's not quite the magic bullet some makers would have folks believe.
I don't know who the purveyors of magic bullet marketing are you're referring to but its just marketing. Just like the ads that try to convince you that life is better if you just drink a Coke or have some Kool Aid.
You seem to be adhering to the notion of "all or nothing". You don't have to switch from any camera system. One can have their DSLRs and lenses *and* have a mirrorless camera and lenses. There are no cameras of any form factor I'm aware of that are perfectly suited to everyone.
If the current mirrorless camera systems offerings don't fit your needs that's fine. To each his own.
-
I don't know who the purveyors of magic bullet marketing are you're referring to but its just marketing. Just like the ads that try to convince you that life is better if you just drink a Coke or have some Kool Aid.
You seem to be adhering to the notion of "all or nothing". You don't have to switch from any camera system. One can have their DSLRs and lenses *and* have a mirrorless camera and lenses. There are no cameras of any form factor I'm aware of that are perfectly suited to everyone.
If the current mirrorless camera systems offerings don't fit your needs that's fine. To each his own.
I see your point but I think this is the problem for ILC makers if they don't get users to switch where are the going to be years down the road?
I like having an X body, I don't feel there is any point investing in the system, but surely it's the system where the real money is?
Of course I could just keep an X body (or any other maker) and play around and use it with an adapter which I intend to, so you are right it's not all or nothing. Saying that the marketing of ILC makers is clearly aimed at switchers.
-
Saying that the marketing of ILC makers is clearly aimed at switchers.
is it? I thought it was aimed at anyone thinking of buying a camera and trying to point out that you can get superb output from a smaller package. The problem they face is that the general public still think along the lines of ´iphone for convenience´ or ´DSLR because proper cameras are big´.
People with a lot of photographic experience in general grow to accept the ´good enough for intended use´compromise and buy a MFT as a secondary camera for general carry-around....and even then it is increasingly common to read of people who do so realising the DSLR is gathering dust in the wardrobe and question why they still have it. I still prefer the ergonomics of DSLR but my MFT cameras get far more use.
-
My thoughts.
I adapted to the EVF on my Olympus cameras pretty easily, starting with the E-M5 and now with the E-M1. The biggest negative to me was having to turn the camera on before looking into the EVF, but I adapted pretty quickly. While I understand that some folks really enjoy looking thru an OVF rather than at an EVF, for me the benefits of the EVF - especially wysiwyg - far outweigh the disadvantages.
The battery life is an issue, but not because I might need 3 or 5 batteries rather than 2. They are small, and don't take up much room. But almost always needing to have a spare rather than leaving the house with just the battery in the camera makes a bit difference. Similarly, having dual card slots in my Nikon meant I walked out with two cards and enough battery for many hundreds of shots. Now, I need to take an extra battery and an extra card - something to remember and stuff in my pocket.
Given that the essential difference in kit size is the m43 lenses rather than the largish bodies I use, I would love to have a slightly larger body with dual card slots and a much bigger battery. I'd even go for microSD if that made the difference.
-
...Well, I think there's a difference between seeing pictures on social media and electronic devices and looking at photographs in a gallery and a a book
The instamatic (remember) never really stopped photographers using large format, but maybe it helped them to go to 35mm.Pus ca change etc etc
Looking forward to using omd-5 mark 2 :)