Mirrorless Vs Regular DSLR -- Your thoughts???
- Thread starter Dylan777
- Start date
- Status
C
cornh
Guest
I own a Samsung NX200. Even though it is not as good as a more expensive DSLR with viewfinder you still get something quite powerful in a small package.
I find the small size very useful in documentary situations. Sometimes when you take out a big camera people get nervous but with a small mirrorless DSLR you just look like some random tourist with a compact camera.
I don't prefer mirrorless cameras over DSLR but I must say that it is really useful in many situations. With the NX 30/f2 pancake I can have the camera in my pocket, take it out quick and produce really good images.
I find the small size very useful in documentary situations. Sometimes when you take out a big camera people get nervous but with a small mirrorless DSLR you just look like some random tourist with a compact camera.
I don't prefer mirrorless cameras over DSLR but I must say that it is really useful in many situations. With the NX 30/f2 pancake I can have the camera in my pocket, take it out quick and produce really good images.
Upvote
0
One would be no movment to cause issues with an image being taken. For example on a telescope, having a moving mirror can introduce vibration that could blur the image.
Less noise so more desirable in noise sensative environments
No mirror assembly to wear out if you take loads of shots, for example in timelapse.
Probably hundreds more too.
Less noise so more desirable in noise sensative environments
No mirror assembly to wear out if you take loads of shots, for example in timelapse.
Probably hundreds more too.
Upvote
0
Am I wrong for thinking that the only reason the mirror exists is so you can have an optical viewfinder?
Upvote
0
it was for faster AF, but now the Olympus and Panasonic do have "faster" AF speed than majority of the DSLR.
i see that mirrorless is eating up the lower entry level DSLR, ie, 1000D/600D or even the 60D, but not the 7D yet.
and seeing FF from Nikon and Canon rumor being priced below $2000, i would say the future would be mirrorless for pocketability, entry level, non-professional use, then you look into DSLR for speed, specific fucntion and FF
i see that mirrorless is eating up the lower entry level DSLR, ie, 1000D/600D or even the 60D, but not the 7D yet.
and seeing FF from Nikon and Canon rumor being priced below $2000, i would say the future would be mirrorless for pocketability, entry level, non-professional use, then you look into DSLR for speed, specific fucntion and FF
Upvote
0
MK5GTI said:
There are many ways AF can be measured though and locking on to a stationary object at high speed would be considered less important that tracting moving objects or low light performance by many.
Battery comsumption is also a fairly big issue with an OVF obviously needing far less than either a back screen or EVF.
My guess is that mirrorless is taking a little bite out of lower end DSLR sales but a much larger bite out of bridge compact sales. You look at the amazon sales charts for lenses and mirrorless barely registers dispite high body sales, that to me suggests less serious users happy to stick to the kit lens.
As you move towards more advanced lens designs then size becomes much more of an issue aswell I'd say, tele lenses, zooms with longer range or a large appature, macro's etc seem like there always likely to be large enough to make a truely compact mirrorless system impossible aswell as potentially very unbalanced. The natural market for the higher end mirrorless system to me seems to be one based on primes in the wide to short tele range ala Leica as Fuji seem to be atempting.
Upvote
0
The main thing I like about mirrorless cameras is the smaller size and that there is no mirrorslap.
The con is that the only affordable mirrorless with FF is the uber expensive Leica M9.
I am still waiting for Canon, Nikon or Sony to make a full frame mirrorless.
The con is that the only affordable mirrorless with FF is the uber expensive Leica M9.
I am still waiting for Canon, Nikon or Sony to make a full frame mirrorless.
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
Pros: smaller, can adapt just about any lens to it. Usable AF in video mode.
Cons: smaller sensor. Very limited lens lineups (with the exception of micro 4/3). Some models don't have great sensor performance even taking the reduced size into account.
I wouldn't use mirrorless as a replacement for DSLR, but I find it works very nicely as a compact camera.
Upvote
0
drjlo said:
i really though canon had a perfect oportunity to resurect the aps-h sensor in this guise and come out of the mirrorless gate swinging it would have been an instant knockdown to all the aps-cones.
just poping out another aps-c mirrorless isnt really breaking any new ground.
they already have the tech no one else does aps-h, ball well and truely dropped IMO
but we shall see what they come up with who knows it might be quite good but it needs to be able to use EF lenses whatever it is.
Upvote
0
Its not that I "want" a mirrorless camera over a DSLR. But sometimes I want to take photos with a camera that is less obtrusive or intimidating. A camera that's a bit lighter and more ergonmical to carry around would also be a bonus.
About 12 months ago, I purchased an Olympus EPL-1 to fill this role. Overall I am happy with it. Although images are a bit noisy in low light, in good light it is great and the EVF works well (and has some benefits over an OVF). This camera has made me a mirrorless convert and if Canon introduces something better (especially if it had a FF or APS-H sensor), I'll be all over it.
But like most things, there are trade-offs. A mirrorless camera won't be your first choice for action photos and if you were only going to own one camera, a DSLR would be a more sensible choice. But a DSLR is what everyone's mum owns. I agree that a mirrorless camera would be way cooler....
About 12 months ago, I purchased an Olympus EPL-1 to fill this role. Overall I am happy with it. Although images are a bit noisy in low light, in good light it is great and the EVF works well (and has some benefits over an OVF). This camera has made me a mirrorless convert and if Canon introduces something better (especially if it had a FF or APS-H sensor), I'll be all over it.
But like most things, there are trade-offs. A mirrorless camera won't be your first choice for action photos and if you were only going to own one camera, a DSLR would be a more sensible choice. But a DSLR is what everyone's mum owns. I agree that a mirrorless camera would be way cooler....
Upvote
0
I honestly have no need for one. We had two point and shoots that I recently got rid of. They took up space. If I need something unobtrusive I have my iPhone. iPhone doesn't take great pictures, but that's why I have a 5DIII and tons of kit. My only problem is not having the DSLR with me everywhere I go. I carry it more than I did a point and shoot though.
Upvote
0
| PRO | CONTRA |
| +compact size possible | -fast AF is (up to now) missing |
| +last lens element can be near sensor: More freedom for lens design/better quality with less effort possible | -high power demand for TFT/less runtime (correctable e.g. with EVF, battery pack) added after reading JerryKnights words |
| +easier cleaning of sensor | |
| +image control via monitor is easier (for me)/compare it to my rolleicord viewfinder | |
| +less moving components -> durability possible with less effort |
My premium pros are the compact size of the camera with the possibility to design flat lenses with very high quality. Omitting the mirror box helps the lens designer to minimize lens elements at very high image quality. All wide angles for SLRs are retrofocus designs which bend the light to shift a virtual lens lens plane to the sensor - the 10-22 mm lens has to "simulate" a single lens with a distance of 10 mm from the sensor plane but has to leave some 20 mm space for the mirror!
Best - Michael
Upvote
0
One other thing to keep in mind is battery life. How many shots do you get with your DSLR in live view mode? Because that's the only mode available to a mirrorless.
Personally, I can get well over 1,500 shots on one battery with my 5D3 without live view. If I were to use live view the whole time, I'd be surprised if I could get 400.
So if mirrorless cameras really are going to threaten DSLR's, they'll either have to dramatically improve battery capacity or live view power efficiency. Not saying it's not going to happen eventually, but they have a long way to go in terms of battery life.
Personally, I can get well over 1,500 shots on one battery with my 5D3 without live view. If I were to use live view the whole time, I'd be surprised if I could get 400.
So if mirrorless cameras really are going to threaten DSLR's, they'll either have to dramatically improve battery capacity or live view power efficiency. Not saying it's not going to happen eventually, but they have a long way to go in terms of battery life.
Upvote
0
JerryKnight said:
Good point! I missed it in my Contra column in the tab above. I would use a mirrorless as (more or less) pocketable camera and as video camera. For the latter use I would like to have additional batteries just for the purpose to take longer video shots.
One alternative exists: The EVF which needs a tiny fraction of power compared to a 3 inch LCD display - I would prefer to have one in a mirrorless - for the shooting in bright sunlight or limited space or to have a third point to stabilize the camera with my forehead.
Upvote
0
- Status
