Benefits of a mirrorless FF?

[Lawliet]

since there is no shutter/mirror to seal it when changing lenses

Most of them have a shutter, just no mirror.
In the case of the A7r an annoyingly slow one. :'(

 

[bholliman]

While I'm a big fan of smaller and lighter camera systems, I'm not sure mirrorless FF will have much if any advantage over a DSLR. The camera body will be somewhat lighter, but the lenses for the system will be as large or nearly as large as those for DSLR's. So, the overall weight savings will be small percentage-wise, especially when using longer telephoto lenses.

Others mentioned not having to deal with mirror slap, but that is very minor issue and can be easily handled via mirror lock-up for shots where it causes problems. Also, the mirror helps protect the sensor from dust.

I strongly prefer OVF's over the latest EVF's (I've tried the latest Sony and Leica ones). At some point EVF's may evolve to where they are as good or better than OVF's, but they are not that close yet.

 

[ecka]

FF mirrorless advantages:
great lens adaptability (including rangefinder optics);
EVF (yes it does have many advantages over OVF);
manual focus (EVF + focus peaking);
easier sensor cleaning procedure;
no mirror - less vibration, longer life;
size and weight;
lower price (than FF DSLR);
perfect for landscape, portrait, macro, astro and video.

 

[xvnm]

One benefit would be is that there would be no slapping mirror. This makes the camera more stabilized and well, smaller.

You can achieve the same on a DSLR by shooting live view (even though I fail to see what would be the point a DSLR to only shoot LV )

 

[xvnm]

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

Not really. You can always make the flange distance as long as you want: just make the rear end of a lens longer. As stupid as it may sound, this is exactly what Samyang is doing with their lenses for the new Sonys: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/16/samyang-announces-five-full-frame-e-mount-lenses

 

[SiliconVoid]

Whether or not it is a cropped sensor or 35mm format does not matter in regard to 'benefits' of a mirrorless camera.

List of mirrorless benefits:
Access to mount/use just about any lens ever made.
-End of list:


Just about everything else involved with mirrorless cameras is a work around or detriment, sorry..

 

[deleteme]

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.

I will add that this is precisely the argument Olympus used in the development of the 4/3 system. They argued that by creating a lens system tailored to the unique properties of a sensor that IQ could be maximized. Thus the 4/3 lenses were not too much smaller that we may have been led to believe.
I also suspect that a number of FE lenses may be old formulas in new barrels to save time and money in getting lenses to market.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

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

Not really. You can always make the flange distance as long as you want: just make the rear end of a lens longer. As stupid as it may sound, this is exactly what Samyang is doing with their lenses for the new Sonys: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/16/samyang-announces-five-full-frame-e-mount-lenses

It's like using the EF-EOS M adapter, which defeats the point of having smaller camera - whatever you save on body depth you lose on camera length.

 

[verysimplejason]

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

Actually Zeiss got some good lenses for Sony mount. You just have to use adapters as currently there's still not much native mount lenses. But for this usage, I can imagine how many lenses would you actually expect. Personally, I would just love prime lenses for this kind of camera.

 

[verysimplejason]

One benefit would be is that there would be no slapping mirror. This makes the camera more stabilized and well, smaller.

You can achieve the same on a DSLR by shooting live view (even though I fail to see what would be the point a DSLR to only shoot LV )

And AF is much slower in live view. The 70D just made it decent enough but it's still a slowpoke compared to non-LV AF.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Suprisingly few benefits and a lot of take-aways.

Weight- no major reduction, the lenses are as big and heavy as ever, a FF requires big lenses.

EVF - most of us hate them, but they are getting better.

Autofocus - slow and slower. Tracking - forget it.

The main benefit is the elimination of the moving mirror, but it comes with a loss of capabilities.

 

[duydaniel]

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.

Suprisingly few benefits and a lot of take-aways.

Weight- no major reduction, the lenses are as big and heavy as ever, a FF requires big lenses.

EVF - most of us hate them, but they are getting better.

Autofocus - slow and slower. Tracking - forget it.

The main benefit is the elimination of the moving mirror, but it comes with a loss of capabilities.

Agree, I would add it is not as durable as dslr

 

[Dylan777]

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.

Suprisingly few benefits and a lot of take-aways.

Weight- no major reduction, the lenses are as big and heavy as ever, a FF requires big lenses.

EVF - most of us hate them, but they are getting better.

Autofocus - slow and slower. Tracking - forget it.

The main benefit is the elimination of the moving mirror, but it comes with a loss of capabilities.

Agree, I would add it is not as durable as dslr

I wonder :... have you guys ever hand-on or shoot with RX1 before?

 

[ecka]

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

Not really. You can always make the flange distance as long as you want: just make the rear end of a lens longer. As stupid as it may sound, this is exactly what Samyang is doing with their lenses for the new Sonys: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/16/samyang-announces-five-full-frame-e-mount-lenses

It's like using the EF-EOS M adapter, which defeats the point of having smaller camera - whatever you save on body depth you lose on camera length.

I think the question is - 'What's the point of making such small APS-C mirrorless camera?'. Better grip, bigger battery and vari-angle LCD would add a lot of value to a camera.

 

[J.R.]

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.

Agreed. I've been wondering how the balance would be if I were to use a 400 gm body with the 70-200 II

 

[J.R.]

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!)

I'm not too sure how this will work out in the long run. Adapters have their own issues which will be more apparent once you get into high MP cameras. The problem is compounded with FF cameras where corner sharpness while using an adapter suffers.

If adapters had no downsides at all, you wouldn't find Canon users yearning for a 14-24 - they would have simply purchased the Nikon 14-24 with an adapter - I know a few who use this combination but they would still like to have a native lens because the IQ is not as good as it can be.

 

[J.R.]

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

None whatsoever - Canon didn't even consider making an adapter (which is getting the wows from the mirrorless crowd) for the FD lenses

 

[J.R.]

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

They do seem to have an ambitious plan with zeiss, but the lenses are slower compared to Canon / Nikon which have multiple variants for the same FL.

Nevertheless, there is a difference in a zeiss lens and a zeiss branded lens. Sony has been using zeiss branded lenses for a while now and I'm not too sure which one is the real outstanding one.

 

[J.R.]

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

I've thought about it but don't seem to agree that there will be too much of a difference. Most of the dust which settles on the mirror gets redistributed when the mirror whacks about when the shots are taken. All depends on how good the in-built sensor mechanism would be.

 

[J.R.]

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.

Manual focus lenses on digital cameras are okay for landscape photos where you can shift to live-view and take your time focusing. For shooting any sort of action they make me cringe.