Options
Opinion on mirrorless cameras
lovely planet
Registered Users Posts: 8 Beginner grinner
I would love to hear people's opinions on mirrorless cameras.
We have a Nikon DSLR and were looking for some new lenses. Then we came across these mirrorless cameras which sound great for travel being light weight and smaller. So we are tempted to give up the Nikon and invest in a new camera. However we are also reluctant to give up all the Nikon goodies we have already spent money on.
We are photography enthusiasts, complete amateurs. We travel a lot and love taking tons of photos when we do. We want to improve our skills and become better.
Thank you for sharing your opinions in advance!
We have a Nikon DSLR and were looking for some new lenses. Then we came across these mirrorless cameras which sound great for travel being light weight and smaller. So we are tempted to give up the Nikon and invest in a new camera. However we are also reluctant to give up all the Nikon goodies we have already spent money on.
We are photography enthusiasts, complete amateurs. We travel a lot and love taking tons of photos when we do. We want to improve our skills and become better.
Thank you for sharing your opinions in advance!
0
Comments
The mirrorless system also has it's own series of very light and compact lenses should you choose to go that way. The cameras do not do well in poor light, but in most circumstances, it's quite a capable camera and I've used mine to shoot certain events and sports since it can be shot silently. A HUGE help with sports like golf.
-P
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
yes, the zoom lens take up space. The newer "pancake" style lens are much smaller and are specially designed for the mirror-less systems.
There are many advantages over the dslr type cameras IMHO, size being just one of them.
I've got Nikon DSLRs and various lenses, but could never be bothered to carry any of them when traveling. A month or so before my most recent vacation I bought a Sony NEX-7 and two lenses.
Best decision I've made in some time.
You get the fun of a good camera, with none of the weight or space considerations.
There are compromises in everything photographic. The best low-light performance still seems to come from full-size DSLRs, for example. But if you consider what matters most, you may also decide to go mirror-less. The Sony has a feature whereby (when the correct mode is chosen) several frames are combined in-camera for a sharp image in low light. That doesn't help with moving subjects, but at least partially mitigates the issue.
Existing lenses with large apertures are scarce (for the Sonys, anyway).
Adapters are available that permit you to mount lenses from other systems on a mirror-less body (though you typically lose a feature such as autofocus, or you pay a high price).
Thom Hogan is a photographer and writer whom I respect. You might want to peruse he website for thoughts on mirror-less cameras:
http://www.sansmirror.com
Good luck!
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
- The autofocus is sluggish, awkward, and imprecise
- Manual focus is excellent, far easier than on glass (even with full frame), because of focus peaking and magnification
- The ability to mount random lenses is amazing, especially if you like rangefinder lenses.
- Having a tilty screen is remarkably fun; can't get that except on low-end DSLRs
- A built in bounce flash (just tilt it up with your finger) is remarkably useful for casual low light indoor photography
- Overall image quality seems as good as nikon DX, though colors/whitebalance are not as good to my eyes and take more post-processing work
- Lens quality is lacking in the zoom department--NEX doesn't have pro-quality zooms yet. However, there are many excellent primes.
- Video is far simpler and it's far easier to get better results
- With a light camera and light lenses, you can use a light tripod
NEX have grown a lot over the last year as Sony released quite a lot of prime lenses. During the first year it was mostly adapters and manual lenses. I have several M-mount and Contax G lenses and adapters but stopped using them lately as Sony E-mount lenses like 50mm, 35mm, 10-18mm, 24mm are as good as lenses on any mount at their price range.
Lately, I got Sony RX100 and love that even more as it takes pictures like DSLR in good light conditions. It slips into pocket easily and you can shoot in RAW if you plan to improve them in LR.
If you rarely shoot at high ISOs, if action captures are not a priority then a mirrorless camera will fit your needs with a whole lot less weight and expense.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I have gone completely over to the micro four-thirds mirrorless system, and couldn't be happier. I'm hearing people talk and write about the low-light and action issues, but I have yet to actually experience any of those issues, and I do a lot of my work in both of those areas.
I'm using the Lumix G5 (will probably switch to the GH5 when it comes out), and it's a terrific camera. More importantly, however, is that I can use all of my vintage Leica lenses with a simple converter. That would be impossible to do with a DSLR due to the depth of the mirror box. I also purchased the modern Lumix/Leica 25mm f1.4 Summilux lens - it is an amazing low-light performer, and it is equivalent to 50 mm. Speaking of which, that is another really neat feature of the micro four-thirds system - the focal length of every lens is doubled and is lossless - no effect to the aperture whatsoever. Think of the possibilities.
My DSLR gear has been sitting on a shelf for over a year now, and it will soon by heading to Craig's List.
website: www.ThirdDayImaging.com
Bodies: Panasonic Lumix GF3 and G5
Lenses: Leica/Lumix Summilux 25mm f1.4, Leica Summicron 50mm f2 (dual range), Leica Summicron 90mm f2, Leica Elmar 135mm f4, Lumix 12-42mm f3.5-f5
Well... since you said "whatsoever" I'm going to have to bust your balls.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
It really does depend on what you are going to do with your shots. If you just want them for your own viewing and printing to A3 size plus on-line posting then a mirror-less is fine. If you want to print poster size then a DSLR might be better, especially full-frame like the 5D. I recently took two A3 prints to my framer, one taken with the G3 and the other with the 5D. He could tell which print had come from which camera, but only just and he had to peer pretty closely to tell the difference. How many people look at your prints that closely?
You will probably find that lenses for mirror-less cameras are no cheaper than good quality DSLR lenses, but they will be lighter and smaller. Go for quality if you can.
I don't know what kind of low-light and action photography you are doing on m43, but the simple fact of physics remains. A smaller sensor is going to be exposed to less light, all else being equal. And that has to be made up for with gain... And that begets noise. Period.
As for your vintage Leica lenses not fitting on a modern DSLR... sorry, wrong. I have M42 adapters for both my Canon and Nikon cameras and they work fine. You can get your own right here for $5.25:
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-07LAm39m42-Lens-Mount-Adapter/dp/B001G4QXQY
As to the focal length being doubled, this is also a fallacy. The focal length remains the same. What changes is the field of view. This can certainly be handy when trying to focus on distant objects. Not such and advantage when trying to get the 35mm equivalent of 14-20mm as is common in architecture, or indoor photography. Or even for sweeping landscapes or wide vistas.
Each system bring with it pluses and minuses. Understanding them is paramount to getting what we need or want from these systems.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Of course you can "mount" them on a DSLR, but because there is no way to get the rear of the lens as close to the focal plane as they were designed to be used on thin Leica M bodies with focal plane shutters. In fact, the adapter worsens this effect by pulling the lens even further from the focal plane. What ends up happening is twofold. First, the accuracy of of the DOF scale on the lens itself is history because the distance scale is now way off. Now that may not be a very big deal if you're strictly an auto-focus guy or if you're not planning to do much tripod-mounted close-up work - it's just more of an inconvenience at such times. However, the bigger issue is sharpness of focus at infinity, which is crucial in landscape photography. It may be "sharp enough" for some, but you will never get that classic Leica sharpness, at infinity, with a DSLR. In fact, that whole issue has inadvertently become a selling point for Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony.
website: www.ThirdDayImaging.com
Bodies: Panasonic Lumix GF3 and G5
Lenses: Leica/Lumix Summilux 25mm f1.4, Leica Summicron 50mm f2 (dual range), Leica Summicron 90mm f2, Leica Elmar 135mm f4, Lumix 12-42mm f3.5-f5
Quite right! I think part of the confusion is caused by referring to smaller sensors as 'crop factor' cameras. It should perhaps be 'overspill' cameras.
The easy way to quickly see the effect is to draw a rectangle (about 2x1 inches) in portrait mode on a sheet of white paper with a smaller rectangle about half the size inside the first one. This represents the sensor. Then get a lens and in a darkened room with a bright window at one end hold the lens up (not attached to the camera) pointing towards the window while holding the sheet of paper roughly where the sensor would a short distance behind the back of the lens. If the image of the window (it will be upside down) fits into the larger rectangle that is equivalent to a full sensor. But the smaller rectangle in the centre although still showing part of the image has overspilled the edges and still fits into the outer rectangle. Hence the 'crop' factor. But the lens is still projecting the same image overall.
The surface area of a 4/3 sensor is about 250mm2 (18mm x 14mm) whereas a full-frame sensor such as my 5DM2 is 864mm2 (36mm x 24mm). That has implications for image quality against a mirror-less system sensor, and also what is projected onto it for a given lens. A crop-factor (APSC) sensor is about 380mm2, but it varies.
http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/camera-system/sensor-sizes
Please post examples. I got an EOS adapter for my screw mount Leica lenses out of curiosity, and the lenses are simply too far away from the sensor to be of any real use. It's like using a very long extension tube, it turns the lens into a macro which can only focus a couple inches in front of the camera. This is on FF, maybe APS-C is better but I can't imagine better enough to actually be useful.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Exactly Jack! And I said earlier:
Irregardless of the mirorless/dslr issue, there are always people who think they know much more than they do, and they are often critical of others. The technical side of things can certainly be helpful, but the practical side of things is actually useful. After 40 years in the field, I have found that high quality results = happy customers = word of mouth advertising. At the moment, I am not pursuing mural size images. So the micro four-thirds mirrorless system with vintage leica lenses is rendering excellent results. I will admit that I was initially cautious, but after displaying 24x30 inch prints at gallery shows I have become a believer.
website: www.ThirdDayImaging.com
Bodies: Panasonic Lumix GF3 and G5
Lenses: Leica/Lumix Summilux 25mm f1.4, Leica Summicron 50mm f2 (dual range), Leica Summicron 90mm f2, Leica Elmar 135mm f4, Lumix 12-42mm f3.5-f5
Leica "screw mount" (M39) lenses would have to be mounted on a recessed adapter to allow infinity focus, which likely would require mirror-lock-up to prevent damage to the host Canon/Nikon body. (Not really practical and previous attempts have largely failed.)
Alternately, a more complicated adapter with either an optic relay system or an optic "telextender" adapter might be developed, but I don't know of any.
The reason is the Leica R lenses use a 47 mm flange-focus distance (FFD) vs the M39 FFD of 27.80 mm, and the Canon EOS bodies have an FFD of 44 mm while Nikon F uses 46.50 mm FFD.
Pentax Q, Nikon 1, Fujifilm X, Canon EF-M, Sony E, Micro Four Thirds and Samsung NX, mounts are all very short FFD and so they too may allow for a relatively simple adapter for Leica lenses (for example).
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StJ-OK4jiSY
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
website: www.ThirdDayImaging.com
Bodies: Panasonic Lumix GF3 and G5
Lenses: Leica/Lumix Summilux 25mm f1.4, Leica Summicron 50mm f2 (dual range), Leica Summicron 90mm f2, Leica Elmar 135mm f4, Lumix 12-42mm f3.5-f5
With any system, the lenses you use matter a lot. The micro 4/3 system has some pretty high quality options now and I expect it'll get even better. That's one reason I opted for the OM-D over one of the NEX cameras. I expect Sony to gain even more traction as their system matures.
Several people have told you that a mirrorless camera fits their needs. You need to define your needs and see whether any mirrorless cameras fit those needs better than your current Nikon. Some things to check:
- Do you need a viewfinder or will the LCD on the back of the camera satisfy your needs? (Some mirrorless cameras have no viewfinder at all. For others, you can buy an EVF at several hundred dollars extra cost. I find an LCD unusable in bright sunlight.)
- Will an EVF (small LCD in the viewfinder) be good enough or will you prefer an optical viewfinder?
- How is optical quality at higher ISO settings? Being able to use higher ISO values freely alleviates shuitter speed concerns and makes image stabilization less necessary.
- How is the battery life? Batteries in our Nikons last for 800-900 shots with the LCD mostly off. That has been a major quality of life improvement. I'd hate to go back to a 300 shot per battery camera.
- Are the lenses you need available for the camera mount you are interested in? (focal length, prime or zoom, quality) In my case, choices in macro lenses were limited for some mounts and completely unsatisfactory for other mounts. Nothing was as functional as the Sigma 150mm lens I use on a D7000. Choices for long primes were non-existent for the m4/3 system.
- If you use an adapter to mount lens for the Nikon mount, what do you lose in sharpness? can you set the aperture for a lens without an aperture ring? Do auto-focus work on adapter lenses?
- Are you willing to pay the cost of changing systems? Current model mirrorless cameras are not cheap either.
- How about getting a smaller, cheaper, newer Nikon body instead? New D3x00 and D5x00 bodies are much cheaper than an Olympus OMD for example. You'd be saving a lot of weight relative to a larger body such as a D90/D7000 or a D200/D300. Quality and high ISO performance might be a lot better than for an older Nikon body such as a D200. And you might not need any new lenses.
- Can you buy a mirrorless camera and a single zoom (or two) for traveling light and keep the Nikon gear for uses the mirrorless camera isn't as good at?
Bill
I guess we all have our biases, preferences, and opinions.
The only thing further that I would suggest is to go to some of our websites and see what kind of results we are getting with the Micro 4/3 system. Then compare those results with others. When I say results, I'm not referring to the subjective things like composition, etc., but rather, to the objective things which have been mentioned in this thread. Such as: Clarity/sharpness, low light rendering, lenses used, crop factor, etc.
website: www.ThirdDayImaging.com
Bodies: Panasonic Lumix GF3 and G5
Lenses: Leica/Lumix Summilux 25mm f1.4, Leica Summicron 50mm f2 (dual range), Leica Summicron 90mm f2, Leica Elmar 135mm f4, Lumix 12-42mm f3.5-f5
Such a polite dismissal from a fanboy.
The real capabilities the OP needs will matter to him. Better to think things through before he spends money. The questions I suggested get at those real needs. The answers might cause the OP to stick with his Nikon gear or to switch to something else.
I illustrated some of the questions with the answers that were relevant to me when I considered an OMD camera a few months ago. The OP needs to do his own thinking and find the answers that are relevant to his situation.
Bill
I purchased a Panasonic GF-1 when it was introduced several years ago, as I was interested in its smaller form factor. Below ISO 500, It took fine pictures, but was not a DSLR replacement. It has no built in EVY. AF was way too slow, and the images can be a bit noisy at ISO 500 and higher. But I do have some great images from that little camera, and I could print them up to 16x 20 without difficultly. I still find it useful at times.
Recently, I bought an Olympus OMD-E5 for my spouse, and it is quite good. The AF still can't keep up with a 1 Series Canon body, nor is the noise quite as low as a 1DX, but for most of my images the OMD-E5 is quite adequate, small, light, and the lenses are pretty small as well.
After relinquishing the OMD to my spouse, I bought a Lumix GH-3 for myself, and am quite pleased with it. It is not a camera for birds in flight. (Actually, it will occasionally capture BIFs, but not consistently, and not reliably in my hands. ) None the less, I have used it to shoot wildlife with good success. The choice between a GH-3 with a Lumix 100-300 lens, and a 1DX with a 400mm prime is not an easy one. Yes, the technical quality of the 1DX files will be better, but not always enough better to justify the extra weight and space of the larger camera. The weight difference can be critical with international air travel.
Many craftsmen decide they need a large hammer and a small hammer, that just one medium hammer is not adequate, or enough. I am one of those guys, not an either/or, but both.
The Lumix 14-140 lens ( a full frame equivalent of 28-280 ) makes a pretty nice walk around lens. The Leica designed 45mm Macro Elmarit is a pretty nice 90 mm equivalent macro lens, and the OMS body offers in body vibration reduction.
The Lumix 12-35 f2.8 and the 35-100 f2.8 zooms are very nice. The Olympus 45 f1.8 and the 75 f1.8 are both nice, sharp lenses with great bokeh.
Both Sigma and Tamron are making m4/3 lenses in addition to Panasonic and Olympus. The glass situation for m4/3s is getting pretty decked out.
I shoot a lot of panos with my m4/3 bodies too.
Easy to handle, I never leave home without one. I cannot say that about my 1series body..... The best camera is the one you have with you when you need it.
Marc swears his GH-3 will AF on a star at night. That is not too shabby either.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
A couple of examples
Stack of 1135 shots, with the grip, which allows for two batteries. I'm actually not sure if the batteries failed first or the card filled up first. Very little processing- just raw conversion, linear, average raw noise subtraction, stack in lighten mode, dark point adjustment. Didn't clean up the startrails at all. I wish the grip didn't have all the electronics for the extra buttons and allowed for three batteries instead, but 1,135 shots is not too shaby.
100% crop- I did move the dark point, but did no dark frame subtraction or anything at all F2.2, 12mm (native lens) 1250 ISO
Pivoting LCD screen is really helpful for these.
testing out high ISO: F5.3 4000ISO, yeah, it's noisier than a full frame, but i was across the room and zoomed in.
Built in EVF works great. My only complaint with the OM-D is that I wish it had more dials and buttons instead of using the LCD menu for changing some settings. You can program the dials, but I switch a lot of settings and would prefer more buttons.
I just deleted a bunch of test photos I made with a 400mm manual focus canon FD, handheld, on static birds, some flowers with the canon FD 85mm 1.2, and the zuiko 16mm 3.5. For portability, the native lenses for m43 are pretty good, and when portability isn't at a premium, I have nearly the entire stable of old manual focus lenses from Canon, Olympus, and Nikon for them, with an adapter, inlcuding infiniity focus. I know that people argue that these lenses don't have the resolving power necessary for digital sensors, but without pixel peeping my shots I think they are great, and the one thing Olympus does know is how to make awesome prime lenses, so I'm pretty sure more lenses for m43 will be coming.
Can the m43 mirrorless compete will a full frame DSLR, pixel by pixel, no, but if the best camera is the one you have with you, then I can take the m43 with me a lot easier than I can the DSLR, not so much because the camera is smaller and lighter, but because the lenses are.
Full frame mirrorless doesn't buy you much reduction in lens size, but for me, the E-m5 hits a pretty good sweet spot between image quality, settings flexibility, and portability. Full frame mirrorless will eventually be exciting, I think, for things like getting rid of the AA filter, PDAF on the sensor for more IR flexibility, and stuff like that, not so much for the reduction in size.
I don't know if this would meet your needs, but it works for me.
oh, one more, a shot I just happened to get, because I had the camera in my satchel, I never 'just carry' my DSLR.
-P
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
AFAIK, Pentax Q is the only mirrorless system with interchangeable lenses that have Leaf shutters. Cheers.
PS> A built-in ND filter will also come in handy (the X100s has this, but not sure about others).