DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras

[Denisb]

I read all the comments here. And I disagree with a some of them.

First : Mirrorless are slow, not the 70d liveview (that mirrorless) is fast, as fast that my 5d II with the same lenses.

Second : Mirrorless lens are priced, yes, but, lens from small company are priced, because of R&D versus number of buyer. With a small frace distance, they shouldn't be.

Third : I use my fast prime (85 1.2, 50 1.5, 180 f3.5) wide open for portrait, because they give that look than no other lens can give, and If I was more stupid, I should have the 200 f1.8 ;-)

I hope that Canon will come with a FF 100d or a FF-M with the fast AF of the Dual_pixel found in the 70d I NEED a small package FF frame because that I like the DOF, DR and the light package.

 

[Don Haines]

A break through that makes them attractive to buyers in the USA and Europe is needed before they move into mainstream.

I'm hoping for that, but I am a bit dubious about it happening.

+1

I think that they are the future, but they have to be better than what we have now for that future to come true.

When the first digital cameras came out, some said that they were the future and most ridiculed them..... and here we are 20 years later and very few people would go back to film. The same will be true of mirrorless, but we are not there yet.... getting close, but not there.

Canon's EOS-M failed because it is inferior and has a slow AF. Slap dual-pixel tech into it and it would be a nice camera. I still think that it was designed for dual-pixel but because of delays in that project (guessing here) was rushed to market too soon.

 

[Max ☢]

Fuji with its X-mount platform designed with a 17.7mm flange-sensor depth (the back of the lens is even closer to the sensor by 7.5mm) manages to get some terrific image sharpness with almost no chromatic aberrations all across the frame. I find that my X-T1 with the XF56/1.2 delivers better images overall wide open than my EF 85/1.2LII stopped down to 1.8 on my 6D...

First of all, the 56mm 1.2 *has* CA, even they're quite decent. But if you read my text again, you will note that you get problem in the wideangle-area. I don't think 56mm are wideangled.

I did not say the XF 56/1.2 was free of CA, I said it had "almost no chromatic aberrations" - it's in the quote above. As for the wide angle case, I also have the XF 10-24/4 OIS (15-36/6 FoV and DoF equivalent in 135 format), and this lens combined the X-T1 delivers even (slightly) better image quality than the XF 56/1.2. It is overall as sharp or even sharper on the corners and up to now I can barely see any hints of CA in the corners.

That certainly does not mean that the Fuji system is free of optical issues; The short distance between the lenses back element and the sensor can cause some troublesome multiple reflection which can become visible as faint image artefacts under the most contrasted scenes (e.g. arc lamp with a dark background, or with the sun in the corner of the frame and with dark surroundings such as under a bridge or in a forest). I don't complain though, I got far stronger ghosts with my 6D and EF lenses under the same situations.
Overall, using the shorter flange-sensor depth with the newer dedicated optics of the Fuji X system has been a positive step compared to my older 6D and EF-series lenses, be it in short-tele or in wide-angle range! Do you have some negative experience you'd like to share about the latest Fuji X system?

 

[vscd]

Do you have some negative experience you'd like to share about the latest Fuji X system?

Hmm, I just had one for 2 weeks... and was surprised about the quality. No, I like the Fuji-System, especially the X100S. I use Fuji since my GX680 and my first roll of Velvia. But I don't like the people, who go to the new system and nag on every older DSLR they see. Why can't they live in coexistance? Why do we all need mirrorless boxes? Why electronic viewfinders? Why do they have to masturbate with their 56mm 1.2 under my nose after they sold their Canon 60D, where they never bought any decent lense to compare with? Of course a new formula of 2014 can perform better than a 85 f1.8, especially for 3 times the price. An OTUS would outrule the Fuji in any point... at another 3 times higher price.

But if you ask...

I don't like the feel of the (X-T1) camera with a longer lense, I need a massive grip. The best one was on my Zenza Bronica ETRSi, the worst on my Merrill DP3. Why should I use a camera with a top-heavy lense attached to it? I fully adore the X100S, the X100S is coherent in itself. The X-T1 is a compromise for me. I don't need a cropped sensor in a smaller body for some nearly uncountable weight-advantage. I use a 1D or 5D for serious pictures and a X100S for street photography. The mirrorless system is a nice step into the right direction, but for MFT or APS-C, only. For Fullframe-Cameras, with natually bigger lightcircles and lenses the whole concept is bully. No one needs a Body in a size of a rear end cover. It's the same horseplay as my 40mm Pancake looks on my EOS-1N HS. It doesn't fit nor makes it sense

 

[deleteme]

I like the aspects of mirrorless for size and silence.
What I do not like is:

1. Having a dark VF for a bit when I bring the camera to my eye. I do like rapid response and a DSLR can frame immediately.

2. Really ugly preview in the studio when using flash. In available light I love the preview but it goes out the door when I put a flash or trigger on the camera.

3. Generally small batteries that go along with small bodies. I am not a fanatic about having the absolute smallest camera so I would be happy with a slightly larger body to hold a more robust battery.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The moral of the story? If your a discourteous, tromping wannabe who has to keep on the move because your too impatient to set up, sit, and wait for natures beauty to come to you in comfort...then a tiny light weight mirrorless with a tiny light weight lens is probably for you. You won't get the same action-grabbing performance, you won't have the same ergonomics (those mirrorless cams and lenses are TI-NY...like, toy tiny, like, barely fits in your hands tiny...like, WTF am I doing with a TOY with that BEAUIFUL BIG BIRD in front of me?!?!? OMG!), your IQ won't be as good (or maybe it will if you drop some dough on the FF A7r, but then you'll really be suffering on the AF and ergonomics front).

That's me I do not have enough patience, but I'd never disturb someone in that manner.
I'm still waiting for a mirrorless or at least the next generation of dual pixel and full frame.

 

[Don Haines]

The moral of the story? If your a discourteous, tromping wannabe who has to keep on the move because your too impatient to set up, sit, and wait for natures beauty to come to you in comfort...then a tiny light weight mirrorless with a tiny light weight lens is probably for you. You won't get the same action-grabbing performance, you won't have the same ergonomics (those mirrorless cams and lenses are TI-NY...like, toy tiny, like, barely fits in your hands tiny...like, WTF am I doing with a TOY with that BEAUIFUL BIG BIRD in front of me?!?!? OMG!), your IQ won't be as good (or maybe it will if you drop some dough on the FF A7r, but then you'll really be suffering on the AF and ergonomics front).

Anyway...mirrorless has it's place. They have their uses and their benefits. But, every time I encounter a die-hard mirrorless user, my experiences tend to be similar to the above. Mirrorless users are ALWAYS on the move. Moving moving moving moving. No patience, no time to wait and let things just happen around you. MOVING. I totally understand why they are fanatics about mirrorless...but wow...slow down and enjoy something, enjoy life happening around you every once in a while!

makes me smile.....

my birding setup includes a camping chair and a good book and while I was reading today Harry came past to check me out...

 

[jrista]

The moral of the story? If your a discourteous, tromping wannabe who has to keep on the move because your too impatient to set up, sit, and wait for natures beauty to come to you in comfort...then a tiny light weight mirrorless with a tiny light weight lens is probably for you. You won't get the same action-grabbing performance, you won't have the same ergonomics (those mirrorless cams and lenses are TI-NY...like, toy tiny, like, barely fits in your hands tiny...like, WTF am I doing with a TOY with that BEAUIFUL BIG BIRD in front of me?!?!? OMG!), your IQ won't be as good (or maybe it will if you drop some dough on the FF A7r, but then you'll really be suffering on the AF and ergonomics front).

Anyway...mirrorless has it's place. They have their uses and their benefits. But, every time I encounter a die-hard mirrorless user, my experiences tend to be similar to the above. Mirrorless users are ALWAYS on the move. Moving moving moving moving. No patience, no time to wait and let things just happen around you. MOVING. I totally understand why they are fanatics about mirrorless...but wow...slow down and enjoy something, enjoy life happening around you every once in a while!

makes me smile.....

my birding setup includes a camping chair and a good book and while I was reading today Harry came past to check me out...

Nice shot.

My birding setup included my ass and the ground. And the camera+lens on a tripod, of course. And maybe my phone...on which I have good books, good music, good games, lots of good stuff.