Just some pondering. I'm preparing to box up and sell my 5D IV and go totally miRRorless. I've been trying to avoid a big mistake by doing so, but I'm just not doing action and rough-weather photography at this time. (Wildlife has never been my bag, as I'm too impatient to wait for the critters to DO SOMETHING.)
So, naturally, I'm turning a personal decision into an industry existentialist dilemma, and hoping others will discuss what's the point of dSLR's as mirrorless catch up with performance specs.
With the electronics in the current generation of 5D bodies, and the further refinement coming with the 1DXIII, is there any belief that somehow dSLR's are "simpler" or more "reliable" than mirrorless?
Here's my main assertion: We only need a significant (not "revolutionary) improvement in EVF's, a little faster burst rate, and IBIS to see the nostalgic appeal of dSLR's give way to using what works best. I don't care how experienced a photographer, how flawless the technique, if, spec for spec a mirrorless approaches the performance of a dSLR, mirrorless will be chosen.
My reasoning (if that's what you'd be generous enough to call it)? It's simple. With mirrorless, exposure is as much a part of what we see in the viewfinder as composition. This translates into less chimping, less exposure bracketing, and generally more precise and faster results--with a significantly shorter learning curve.
At this point, mirrorless seems to be "winning" with precision AF; however, I understand Canon is putting out something new with the 1DX III, so we'll see. But, again, all other specs being equal, if we can see exposure as we compose, rather than achieve it based on skill, experience, and some guessing and chimping, (unless we like the personal challenge) why not go with what we see?
AFMA is a factor I'm not so sure about. Even with LiveView, I have a few lenses that benefit from a little AFMA tweaking on my 5DIV (which will probably be sold shortly). And now I'm reading that Nikon and Olympus do, in fact, offer AFMA on their mirrorless bodies. If it could happen behind the scenes, reliably and automatically, that would be better. But if the vast majority of lenses do not need AFMA on mirrorless, if it's the exception rather than the rule we see with dSLR's, it's still nice not to put as much time into AFMA.
I've mentioned before that selling the 5DIV feels like abandoning a faithful dog, but lately that dog has been staying at home nearly every time I take the new dog out. What kind of life is that?
So, naturally, I'm turning a personal decision into an industry existentialist dilemma, and hoping others will discuss what's the point of dSLR's as mirrorless catch up with performance specs.
With the electronics in the current generation of 5D bodies, and the further refinement coming with the 1DXIII, is there any belief that somehow dSLR's are "simpler" or more "reliable" than mirrorless?
Here's my main assertion: We only need a significant (not "revolutionary) improvement in EVF's, a little faster burst rate, and IBIS to see the nostalgic appeal of dSLR's give way to using what works best. I don't care how experienced a photographer, how flawless the technique, if, spec for spec a mirrorless approaches the performance of a dSLR, mirrorless will be chosen.
My reasoning (if that's what you'd be generous enough to call it)? It's simple. With mirrorless, exposure is as much a part of what we see in the viewfinder as composition. This translates into less chimping, less exposure bracketing, and generally more precise and faster results--with a significantly shorter learning curve.
At this point, mirrorless seems to be "winning" with precision AF; however, I understand Canon is putting out something new with the 1DX III, so we'll see. But, again, all other specs being equal, if we can see exposure as we compose, rather than achieve it based on skill, experience, and some guessing and chimping, (unless we like the personal challenge) why not go with what we see?
AFMA is a factor I'm not so sure about. Even with LiveView, I have a few lenses that benefit from a little AFMA tweaking on my 5DIV (which will probably be sold shortly). And now I'm reading that Nikon and Olympus do, in fact, offer AFMA on their mirrorless bodies. If it could happen behind the scenes, reliably and automatically, that would be better. But if the vast majority of lenses do not need AFMA on mirrorless, if it's the exception rather than the rule we see with dSLR's, it's still nice not to put as much time into AFMA.
I've mentioned before that selling the 5DIV feels like abandoning a faithful dog, but lately that dog has been staying at home nearly every time I take the new dog out. What kind of life is that?
Last edited: