Benefits of a mirrorless FF?

[J.R.]

Hi,

I do photography for a hobby and am not too updated on the technical aspects of the latest lineup of cameras these days.

I'm just wondering as to what exactly are the benefits of a mirrorless FF? The only benefit to my mind is a shaving off of approximately 600-800 grams from the bodyweight. And yes, maybe with a dedicated lens lineup, a bit more.

Thoughts?

Cheers ... J.R.

 

[verysimplejason]

One benefit would be is that there would be no slapping mirror. This makes the camera more stabilized and well, smaller. Another thing would be a smaller lens or at least you'll be able to use FD lenses on it and possibly Leica lenses and other older lenses. ;D The only disadvantage I can think of is the lack of OVF generally (so far). I still find OVF to be a lot preferable to an EVF. While Leica got an OVF, it doesn't have AF. As for ergonomics, this is very subjective. Besides, there are 3rd party custom grips that are made available already for some mirrorless cameras.

 

[Ricku]

^ I prefer EVFs. And I'm saying that as a 5D3-owner who have been shooting OVF since year 2000.

The latest EVFs are great. I love to be able to see what my exposure looks like, together with a live histogram. I'm also very fond of features like focus peaking, focus magnify e.t.c.

After trying EVF on the Fuji X100s, the OVF on my 5D3 felt pretty naked and crippled. It was almost hard to go back.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Grumbaki]

the OVF on my 5D3 felt pretty naked

turn on the option to show all AF points. Should solve it

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?

 

[verysimplejason]

Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?

They were able to do it on a smaller sensor, EOS-M with 11-22 and 22mm F2. It'll be easier for an FF version.

 

[RLPhoto]

Small primes + FF mirror less + set of Lee filters = ultimate landscape camera. Less weight in your backpack.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?

They were able to do it on a smaller sensor, EOS-M with 11-22 and 22mm F2. It'll be easier for an FF version.

As far as I understand, it's the other way around - the farther the pixels from the optical axis & the shorter the flange distance, the obtuser the angle the light hits the pixel, causing vignetting. As far as I gather, this is already an issue on current FF cameras with fast and/or wide lenses, e.g. the 24mm f/1.4 L II has >3 stops of vignetting when wide open (translation: corner pixels record ~1/10th the amount of light center pixels record).

 

[Sporgon]

The camera body should be cheaper to construct. The design allows shorter lens to sensor distance. Does this really improve IQ ? Don't know. The detrimental effect of the moving mirror is a pretty weak argument as it only effects certain speeds and there are numerous work arounds.

The OVF vs EVF will continue for ever IMO. There will always be those who want to see through the lens. OVF have as much chance of disappearing altogether as watch faces with hands.

I guess the biggest benefit of mirrorless FF will be to the manufacturers. They're hoping to sell bodies and systems to people who otherwise wouldn't have made a purchase.

 

[Dylan777]

Small primes + FF mirror less + set of Lee filters = ultimate landscape camera. Less weight in your backpack.

+1 with RLPhoto in this case ;D

Size and weight are primary advantages of mirrorless.

I feel if you got into mirrorless system, pls buy some native lenses with it. I'm not trying to open another debate, but I just don't see the point buying mirrorless system + L lenses. I clearly understood the points using as backup, not get into another set of lenses etc...but mirrorless + L lenses will take away the purpose of mirrorless. I rather get another DSLR as a backup if that is the case.

My philosophy is quite simple, "Use the right tool for the right job". I see a lot of people using flat screw driver on phillip screw head :-\

As an owner of RX1 and 5D III, it's day and night diff. holding 5D III + 50L compared to Sony RX1.

 

[Loswr]

As far as I understand, it's the other way around - the farther the pixels from the optical axis & the shorter the flange distance, the obtuser the angle the light hits the pixel, causing vignetting. As far as I gather, this is already an issue on current FF cameras with fast and/or wide lenses, e.g. the 24mm f/1.4 L II has >3 stops of vignetting when wide open (translation: corner pixels record ~1/10th the amount of light center pixels record).

True. Also, the wider the aperture, the more issues there are with the oblique light angles not being collected by the microlenses, and that issue worsens as the pixel pitch gets smaller. Current cameras lose up to a full stop of light int he f/1.2-f/1.4 range, and some cameras clandestinely boost the ISO of fast primes by up to half a stop to compensate.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

As far as I understand, it's the other way around - the farther the pixels from the optical axis & the shorter the flange distance, the obtuser the angle the light hits the pixel, causing vignetting. As far as I gather, this is already an issue on current FF cameras with fast and/or wide lenses, e.g. the 24mm f/1.4 L II has >3 stops of vignetting when wide open (translation: corner pixels record ~1/10th the amount of light center pixels record).

True. Also, the wider the aperture, the more issues there are with the oblique light angles not being collected by the microlenses, and that issue worsens as the pixel pitch gets smaller. Current cameras lose up to a full stop of light int he f/1.2-f/1.4 range, and some cameras clandestinely boost the ISO of fast primes by up to half a stop to compensate.

For this reason alone discourages me buying mirrorless fullframe. I think most intelligent one mirrorless APS-C truly small, including lenses. Considering the same distance between lens mount and sensor, APS-C should be less oblique angle to fullframe, and less vignetting. When size is not an issue, I prefer DSLR.

 

[Pi]

Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?

It seems that retrofocus lenses (typical wide lenses for dSLRs) have some advantages: less vignetting and less oblique rays hitting the sensor. The latter means less problems with lens micro-vignetting as well. This makes them better candidates for fast WA lenses. They are harder to correct for distortions but software distortion correction is not a big problem. There are many other differences as well.

Here is a link http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html that illustrates the first part of what I said but this needs more digging.

 

[ugly_bokeh]

I'm just wondering as to what exactly are the benefits of a mirrorless FF?

One of the most appealing aspects of the full-frame mirrorless (as far as I have read, anyhow) is that you can essentially use any manual full-frame lens ever produced, SLR or rangefinder, via adapter. (Admittedly, you can do this on APS-C as well, but now your hyperfocal marks would all be accurate!)

There won't be any mirror clearance issues with the SLR lenses (like there can be when using such lenses on a DSLR), and there shouldn't be any problems with the various pins, levers, etc., protruding from the backs of those old lenses (due the greater flange distance).

With an EVF, you'd be seeing true DOF without having to swap a focus screen and/or work in Liveview.

Also, these lenses wouldn't suffer from the recently-discussed vignetting/sensor proximity issue that might be a problem for wide or ultra-wide native-mount lenses.

To be sure, a lot of old lenses aren't worth mounting, and others might have problems with color shift and such, but even so....

As a bonus, you could still use all your EF lenses...with EXIF data, aperture control, and autofocus.

 

[unfocused]

One of the most appealing aspects of the full-frame mirrorless (as far as I have read, anyhow) is that you can essentially use any manual full-frame lens ever produced, SLR or rangefinder, via adapter...

This seems like the classic example of "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."

Are there really that many people out there clamoring to use old FD mount lenses, especially with a modern full frame sensor that will emphasize every flaw in those old lenses?

Is there a really a mass market for manual focus lenses? After using manual focus lenses for decades, I can guarantee you I have no nostalgia for manual lenses.

And what incentive would Canon have to produce a body that gives new life to the secondary market of used FD lenses?

 

[SwampYankee]

Well if you go with the new Sony you will save a ton on lens......because there aren't any.

 

[Lawliet]

I'm just wondering as to what exactly are the benefits of a mirrorless FF?

You have to take focus readings from the image sensor, which eliminates a few sources of error - and without fallback to the traditional AF you make it better work. Highly resolved framewide blur is a rare use case after all. Using data overlays in the viewfinder would have its appeal as well. (Although giving those to the rear display would be a nice first step...)

 

[duydaniel]

Though I have never used one, I always wonder how is the dust issue on mirrorless
since there is no shutter/mirror to seal it when changing lenses

 

[ugly_bokeh]

One of the most appealing aspects of the full-frame mirrorless (as far as I have read, anyhow) is that you can essentially use any manual full-frame lens ever produced, SLR or rangefinder, via adapter...

This seems like the classic example of "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."

Are there really that many people out there clamoring to use old FD mount lenses, especially with a modern full frame sensor that will emphasize every flaw in those old lenses?

Is there a really a mass market for manual focus lenses? After using manual focus lenses for decades, I can guarantee you I have no nostalgia for manual lenses.

And what incentive would Canon have to produce a body that gives new life to the secondary market of used FD lenses?

Sorry if my comment sounded like I was talking about the market in general. I meant that this is an appealing aspect of full-frame mirrorless to me.

After using them for decades, I don't mind manual focus lenses (I even prefer them, at times), and I hope there isn't a mass market for the old stuff. In fact, I wish people were less interested in it...especially C/Y Zeiss.

I don't think I ever used any FD lenses. M42 on the other hand....

 

[Eldar]

I don´t like skinny women. I prefer something to both look at and hold. Same thing with cameras.

A mirrorless camera, maybe with an LCD viewer on the back, hooked to my 600 with an extender ... Little less of a problem with an EVF, but still the size imbalance will be a problem.

Then you can add a grip, to make it more holdable and then ... you have the size of a SLR.

But you don´t have the issue of the flopping mirror ... But I have been using SLRs for close to 40 years and never ones have a mirror failed me, so can´t say that worries me much.

But I hate dust on my sensor and, unless there is something I totally miss, that must be a major issue with mirrorless bodies when changing lenses.