I'm starting to wonder if "mirrorless" is all it's hyped up to be

[barryfitzgerald]

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

[Telecaster]

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-

[rdonson]

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.

[Ken Bennett]

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.

[eronald]

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

[scooby70]

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.

[Martin Ranger]

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.

[kers]

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'...)

[barryfitzgerald]

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

[Paulo Bizarro]

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...

[IanB]

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!! 

[Jim Pascoe]

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

[mbaginy]

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! 

[PeterAit]

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.

[Martin Ranger]

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.

[JV]

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...?

[Paul2660]

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

[joneil]

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.

[JV]

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.

[scooby70]

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.