The Mirrorless Revolution

[Iluvmycam]

I embraced the mirrorless cameras when they first appeared on the market since their compactness and light weight were ideal for the type of photography I do (travel, backpacking/hiking). However, I was initially disappointed by the limited dynamic range and the difficulty I had in focusing manually "by wire".

Last year all these problems were solved for me when I got my Sony RX1 and I've never looked back since. I have never had a camera that was as easy to customize or use as this camera is. Initially I was not sure if I would like being limited to a single lens, but in practice I am now focused more on being creative with what I have, and I spend less time obsessing about the gear.

Focus by wire is the most terrible design to hit the camera market in ages. It shows the lack experience the designing engineers have. No decent street or doc shooter would have ever designed it. 

[Alan Klein]

Which would you pick for landscape photography today?  And why?

[MoreOrLess]

Going back to Michaels comment in the video about the weight of his backpack I'd question whether a FF mirrorless would really help that much. If your backpack weighs 35lbs then carrying say 2 a7r's rather than two D810's is what a couple of pounds less? if you consider that Nikon could put the D810 sensor in a D610 sized body that goes down to closer to a pound or half a pound if your just carrying one body. Its the lenses, tripod and other gear that really racks up the weight in my experience.

One issue I'v found as well is that the extra weight of a larger camera can actually limit the need for tripod use, moving from my 550D to a D800 for example I didn't find I was using a tripod anymore dispte the extra resolution and having to stop down a bit more simply because I could hand hold the heavier body with the better grip more successfully. When it comes to convenience for me not needing a tripod is WAY above saving 300-500g on body size.

A very small camera does appeal somewhat for street shooting but honestly I'm not sure I need FF for that either in terms of image quality of extreme DOF control. 35mm might have been standard for it in the past but it seems to be pretty commonly accepted that ASPC has now equalled or surpassed it in terms of quality.

If you ask me the area Canon and Nikon should be looking at is offering higher end size focused ASPC DSLR's/lenses. At present if you want to buy a small ASPC DSLR from them your looking at a plastic body setup for beginners with little in the way of small high quality lenses. I think its notable that in the west specially a lot of the growth of mirrorless cameras has come at the higher end of the market and I think Canon and Nikon leaving that space to fill is part of the reason for it, its also I'd argue whats keeping Pentax above water.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Of all the cameras mentioned. only the Sony A7 and the DSLRs deal well with dynamic range  which is, to  me, the single greatest drawback to the smaller sensors...

Olympus has one stop better dynamic range than 5DmIII, for instance:

[deejjjaaaa]

Olympus has one stop better dynamic range than 5DmIII, for instance:

however FF sensor has its natural advantage in S/N beyond deep shadows, and if you/your shot are not challenged by the need to pull the details from deep shadows 5DmkIII is a better option.

[Hans Kruse]

Olympus has one stop better dynamic range than 5DmIII, for instance:

It's sometimes better to dig into the details where you see that the DR of the Canon is a problem at low ISO's but from about ISO 400 it changes sides. The noise characteristics is way better on FF as you can see.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the DR of the Canon is a problem at low ISO's...

Just where it matters the most 

[ednazarko]

I get asked all the time "what camera should I buy" from friends who've decided their camera phones aren't enough any more.  I shot a couple of pictures awhile back that I now use all the time.  I shot a picture of 3 different "3 lens kits" next to each other.  Ultra-wide (14-24 or close), mid-range zoom (24-70 or so) and a 70-200, or whatever's close.  (In my case, I own Panasonic m4/3 bodies and lenses; a Fuji XPro-1 kit; a Nikon D800E kit.)  I put a little sign next to each setup with the weight of one body, three lenses.  I shot another picture with that kit in a bag just big enough to hold each kit.  Some close friends have slung those three example bags on their shoulders when over for dinner.

And then a few questions: Do you shoot action sports or hyperactive young children; do you want to shoot in really awful dim light a lot; do you expect to print bigger than 16x20 very often.

It's been interesting to me that in all but one case, the decision was to go mirrorless m4/3.

But for me there's a bit more revolution required.  I DO shoot action (rodeo, herding dog trials); I do shoot in dim awful light a lot (a trip to Cuba recently saw me at ISO 6400 more than 800 and under); I do print large and sell those prints.  And I spend a fair amount of money a few times a year to go to places that I won't get to very often, to get to shoot things that most people won't get to shoot. 

9 of 10 times, I end up with the Nikon kit (and screamingly painful knees and shoulders), because uncertainty about light levels or action shooting makes me unwilling to bring the smaller gear and risk losing a few images.  Given that a spectacular yield from a two week shoot is a dozen images, the thought of losing a couple to focus hunting or ISO noise is just too much.

For all non-serious shooting, I never choose the Nikon gear.  For all the serious stuff, I end up with the Nikon kit.  But, with better low light capabilities and verifiably better focusing (as good as the new Fuji focusing is, it's not even close to the Nikon kit in iffy light), my Nikon gear would be out for auction.  A few more pixels wouldn't hurt...

[deejjjaaaa]

Just where it matters the most  

it, as usual, depends on the application/situation... in general I do not see that all of a sudden (or not sudden) there are way more beautiful photos from Nikon or Sony or m43 than from Canon despite their long (by now) lack of high DR @ base ISO sensors

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

it, as usual, depends on the application/situation...

Well, give me a genre where DR is crucial for high ISO. In the meantime, I will give you genres where DR is critical or important: landscape, architecture, portraits, fashion, to name a few. And all those are shot mostly on low ISO.

...in general I do not see that all of a sudden (or not sudden) there are way more beautiful photos from Nikon or Sony or m43 than from Canon despite their long (by now) lack of high DR @ base ISO sensors

That is just a silly argument. We, Canon users (or is it spelled "losers" these days?), are mostly stuck with it. Give it enough time, and most of us will migrate to 21st century camera makers, and then you will see more beautiful pictures from everyone else but Canon. By the way, I noticed recently some Photokina rumors, and it seems that Canon will "shock and awe" us with a new... Rebel!?!?!?!?

[Hans Kruse]

Well, give me a genre where DR is crucial for high ISO. In the meantime, I will give you genres where DR is critical or important: landscape, architecture, portraits, fashion, to name a few. And all those are shot mostly on low ISO.

That is just a silly argument. We, Canon users (or is it spelled "losers" these days?), are mostly stuck with it. Give it enough time, and most of us will migrate to 21st century camera makers, and then you will see more beautiful pictures from everyone else but Canon. By the way, I noticed recently some Photokina rumors, and it seems that Canon will "shock and awe" us with a new... Rebel!?!?!?!?

I shoot both Canon 5D III and Nikon D800E and landscapes and both work for me. Despite the measurements the Canon does work  For wild life high ISO performance and noise is important. Not what I shoot most these days, but I still have my Canon 500 f/4! Where the full frame cameras excels is the resolution and low noise.

[Chrisso26]

Going back to Michaels comment in the video about the weight of his backpack I'd question whether a FF mirrorless would really help that much. If your backpack weighs 35lbs then carrying say 2 a7r's rather than two D810's is what a couple of pounds less? if you consider that Nikon could put the D810 sensor in a D610 sized body that goes down to closer to a pound or half a pound if your just carrying one body. Its the lenses, tripod and other gear that really racks up the weight in my experience.

And you see in the video the Nikon lens is significantly bigger and heavier than all the mirrorless lenses.

[Hans Kruse]

And you see in the video the Nikon lens is significantly bigger and heavier than all the mirrorless lenses.

As I posted much earlier on see the real difference for proper comparison. The difference is not as much and this particular Nikon lens is the biggest of all 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. The Nikon weighs 900 g and the Canon 600g. The Sony 24-70 430 g.

[kodachrome]

Mirrorless cameras aren't used by the press, sports, nature, or any kind of action photographers since the evfs still suck. I would think Michael and Kevin would talk a little about the downsides of the technology. I have no doubt that this will change in time. I think Canon and Nikon think that the technology isn't there yet. But I do agree with Michael/Kevin that Canon and Nikon have their heads in the sand. Photographers want smaller, lighter cameras and lenses. They don't seem to get this at all. Canon could at least make EF-S super teles for the 7D and the soon to come 7DX, 7DMII or whatever it will be called. How about a 500mm f/5.6 EF-S lens???  It would weigh a fraction of the current monstrosity that is the 500 f/4. Of course they probably couldn't get 10k for it, which is probably why they don't make it. You would think Sigma or Tamron would though.

[MoreOrLess]

Well, give me a genre where DR is crucial for high ISO. In the meantime, I will give you genres where DR is critical or important: landscape, architecture, portraits, fashion, to name a few. And all those are shot mostly on low ISO.

Isnt the difference going to be though that whilst the kind of shooting your doing at higher ISO is likely to call for less editing the level of DR your talking about at that stage will need less(or no) editing to show benefits?

[MoreOrLess]

And you see in the video the Nikon lens is significantly bigger and heavier than all the mirrorless lenses.

Your not looking at a like for like comparison in the video are you though, both 24-70mm lenses but the Nikon is a stop faster and seems like a better performer optically(a lot sharper at the long end, less distortion, less light dropoff). The latter really seems like an achilles heel of the wider FE lenses released thus far, the main thing I'v noticed about a lot of a7 example isn't corner softness but corner image noise.

[Hans Kruse]

Just where it matters the most 

But in essence this has nothing to do with mirror less A bigger sensor has more real dynamic range potential for same output sized pictures, more resolution, finer gradations, better colors and less noise. A larger sensor can be put in a mirror less body and medium format as well. Especially for the latter there would be an even bigger advantage by avoiding the mirror and also an electronic first curtain would be of big value. I have looked into the EVF of the Sony A7R and I might be able to live with it, but it is a far cry from the VF on the D810 or the Canon 5D III.

I found it interesting that over two years of what is called the mirror less revolution that sales hasn't increased. I'm totally for mirror less, but I don't think this has matured yet and certainly not to a point of replacing DSLR's. There is still a break through waiting for this to happen. I would call it not a revolution, but an evolution so far. Doing a comparison like what was done in video kind of insulted my intelligence....

[anthony kar]

Mirrorless cameras aren't used by the press, sports, nature, or any kind of action photographers since the evfs still suck. I would think Michael and Kevin would talk a little about the downsides of the technology. I have no doubt that this will change in time. I think Canon and Nikon think that the technology isn't there yet. But I do agree with Michael/Kevin that Canon and Nikon have their heads in the sand. Photographers want smaller, lighter cameras and lenses. They don't seem to get this at all. Canon could at least make EF-S super teles for the 7D and the soon to come 7DX, 7DMII or whatever it will be called. How about a 500mm f/5.6 EF-S lens???  It would weigh a fraction of the current monstrosity that is the 500 f/4. Of course they probably couldn't get 10k for it, which is probably why they don't make it. You would think Sigma or Tamron would though.

Exactly! For me (and I'm sure countless other birders) a super-sharp 500mm f/5.6 EF-S would be an ideal lens if priced anywhere south of £1.5k and weighed less than a 100-400 zoom.
I think there is a lot of innovation left in the DSLR world - it is all about business decision/direction/timing but Canon and Nikon will have something in their back pockets if actual sales (rather than shipments) of mirrorless cameras start to feel too close for comfort.

[bcooter]

From 4/3, apsc, full frame 35, super 35 cinema and medium format I own about every format sold, so I guess you could say I got skin in the game.

The mirrorless 4/3 are ok, the gh3 a good little video camera within it's restrictions of keeping it at low iso and manipulating color.

Also I'm probably in the handful of people that has shot all or part of a large commercial project with a mirrorless camera (at least in stills) and my bottom line is, mirrorless is not there yet, especially the small 4/3 cameras.

Sure, they're fine if your taking a snap and adjusting the color and then sticking it on line or making a smallish print, but if you work a file heavy in post, the files are fragile, with the best being the oly em-5 which has a much lattitude as my 1dx, but doesn't have the deep richness of the 1dx.

Also mirrorless burns through batteries if your working during the day.  

After all the form factor is small, hence the batteries are small, except for the gh3 and gh4 which is a camera that is not that far off from the size of a canon 5d2.

Actually when it comes to real usability, the 70d is a much better camera than my olympus and panasonic mirrorless because the 70d has an apsc sensor, good high iso, an optical finder for stills, an articulating lcd for video, good autofocus with both, actually much better than any pure mirrorless camera I've owned and the 70d is a $900 camera.

I think mirrorless will get there, but they're going to have to up their game.  I still believe 4.3 is too small a sensor, track focus has to improve greatly (except for the panasoics which nobody seems to love on the still side because I guess they're not retro enough looking in style.)

Since I assume people that shoot stills and don't care about video, then the camera has been out there all this time . . . a Leica m9.  It has great detail, a thick file, sharp lenses, doesn't weight much and you can keep it for three years and probably sell it for what you paid, especially the lenses.

Sure the buy in is heftier, but mirrorless cameras seems to drop $200 in price every two weeks, new ones seem to come out every two months,  so cost is relative.

But if cost really is an issue and usability compared to weight is also important a 70d with the 17 to 55 2.8 with good stabilization (apsc makes that about 25mm to 85mm in FF 35mm terms) with a constant 2.8 shoots a very robust still file and really very good video, if video is your bag.

So with the 70d and the 17 to 55 your about $1,700 at most in the game with a lightweight rig that will do most anything and is in effect a mirrorless and optical camera rolled into one.

IMO

BC

[barryfitzgerald]

Shipments isn't sales...so take note on that
I don't honestly mind different products that might suit some users better, choice is good

I'd hardly call it a revolution though
And there are some problems..

Sony FE, no doubt fun for adapter users but goodbye IBIS makes all my A mount glass non stabilised, deal breaker before we even get off the starting blocks
Fuji X, I always liked Fuji and I've tried the X-T1 it's a good camera (few quirks but I like it) lenses are "good" (not sure about the 18-135mm though) But problems..flash system what flash system? Hmm fairly important for some and a major oversight from Fuji
Micro 4/3, tried a few bodies quite liked them GX7 in particular got on well with that. Some excellent lenses. E-M1 well near FF price for a body that well I can match and exceed with cheaper APS-C bodies, very little incentive to look at micro 4/3 for most SLR users "unless" you want to travel light
Nikon 1, don't take this too seriously bar the odd blow out deal might make a good compact substitute but not really a system

I appreciate some folks do want to travel and do want smaller, but get your head around the fact that it's not a factor for many or all users
I'm not seeing a revolution at all, just cost cutting and trying to re-sell us the same thing we've bought years ago in a smaller box

Of course I'm not your average buyer either I cranked up a system based on mostly legacy Minolta (and Tamron) glass for absolute peanuts, something I could not achieve on any other mount all of which is stabilised too. So the incentive to move system is close to 0. I keep an eye on things, have a play the odd time but as for moving..no thanks

I also detest focus by wire too, as do many a very ill informed choice by some in the industry