What is the fuss about mirrorless?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Freida, Dec 15, 2016.

  1. Freida macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    #1
    Hello guys,

    can someone enlighten me please what the fuss is all about for mirrorless cameras? I read Nikon Rumors and people there seems to be obsessed about the mirrorless possibility of Nikon yet I don't understand why. Isn't DSLR technically better and more versatile? If mirrorless has attachable lens like DSLR then what is the point of having mirrorless in the first place? (apart from having slightly smaller and lighter body?)
    To me, it seems that mirrorless still costs tons of money so why is there such a crave?

    I'm confused why would anyone wanna spend around $2000 for mirrorless when for the same price I can have D750 for example.
    Can someone enlighten me so I understand this madness :D :D :D

    Thank you so much :)
     
  2. b0fh666 macrumors 6502a

    b0fh666

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Location:
    south
    #2
    never understood that as well. but those mirrorless guys swear that the sensor-based autofocus is better and faster than our old friend phase-detection and mirrorless can do 10fps and all that so what do I know.
     
  3. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #3
    Yes, DSLR have better specs.

    For me, its the price, I spend a lot less on the body and the lenses. Also another huge factor is size. Many times carrying around a large DSLR is just plain cumbersome. I'm not shooting to make a profit, its a hobby, and most of time its pictures of my kids. I get great IQ, at a very nice price.

    I have two camera bodies, shown below. The EP5 (bottom) can easily fit inside my coat pocket, and takes great pictures. The OMD has more features easier controls and a better flash. While a bit larger, its still a fraction of the size of DSLRs. Trudging around Disneyworld, I'd much have the OMD over the Nikon in the near 100 degree, high humidity weather. Another plus is I can use the lenses I have the OMD for the EP5, and they both take the same quality picture.


    An Oly OMD EM5
    oly_em5.png


    The Oly EP5
    2016-12-15_13-17-47.png
     
  4. Hughmac macrumors demi-god

    Hughmac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    #4
    I'll go cautiously because I can see this thread easily descending into a fanboy battle, but personally, I came from Nikon D7000 and D300 cameras and about a year ago changed over to a Sony mirrorless.

    The positive side of this has been that I can carry the whole kit (body plus 4 prime lenses, a long zoom, flash, spare batteries etc.) in a much smaller camera bag.

    I can get camera fitted with one prime in a large coat pocket, and spare battery and another prime in the other pocket - the effect is that I am able to take the camera out much more easily, and don't feel I have to leave it at home because it's too bulky.

    I cannot see any difference in quality of output, in fact I believe I have improved in my photography (could be just the passage of time and experience rather than using any particular camera) and I've been very pleased with the results.
    The important thing as with any camera is to pick the best lenses you can afford.

    There are downsides of course, mostly battery life, but I have 2 spares which cover this.

    Cheers :)

    Hugh
     
  5. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #5
  6. Apple fanboy macrumors Core

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the Lens, UK
    #6
    You posted the same link in another article the other day. I have seen plenty of other sites with different cameras are best camera of the year, including DSLR's.

    How about we just all pick the camera (system) that works for us and concentrate on taking and making pictures!
     
  7. ignatius345 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2015
    #7
    Different tools for different folks. Pros are still using dSLRs a lot because they have bigger sensors and are very tough and proven designs.

    But man, I sure do love my Olympus OM-D EM-10. It's tiny, fast and puts out gorgeous RAW files. And there are definitely better m4/3 cameras out there by now. For the average user, I think you're going to be pretty hard-pressed to tell a shot from a dSLR from a m4/3 camera. If you're shooting sports or something, though, you're still gonna grab the best full-frame Canon or Nikon dSLR you can get your hands on.
     
  8. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #8
    Exactly,
    There is no best camera, other then the one that you have with you.

    I'm happy with my Oly, but that doesn't mean the Nikon is inferior. It just means I opted for one camera, that's all
     
  9. Freida thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    #9
    This might be a little silly answer from me but for that example you mentioned I would probably prefer iPhone 7 as if I'm in Disneyland in that weather condition then I know the light is good and the iPhone in good lighting produces amazing pictures and yet the size is way smaller. My logic is that I have iPhone for things I want to be quick or opportunistic and then I have DSLR (D90 currently but will update next year when D750 gets refreshed) for those things that I want to focus on photography. I went to NYC recently and I took both (iPhone & DSLR) and I have to admit that it was so cold that I never took the camera with me (mostly because I've been to NYC before and also because in winter its just not that interesting :) ) and even on my phone I much preferred shooting a video over pics.
    Regardless, if IQ in mirrorless is the same as DSLR then why bother having DSLR?

    Also, if I get Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens next year does that meant that I will be able to attach it to those mirrorless cameras if I do decide to go Nikon mirrorless?




     
  10. Hughmac macrumors demi-god

    Hughmac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    #10
    Unlikely that current Nikon lenses would fit natively to a future Nikon mirrorless - they would have dedicated glass. However it is possible they will design an adapter for Nikon DSLR lenses.

    Cheers :)

    Hugh
     
  11. FredT2 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    #11
    First of all, contrary to what others have said, no, DSLR is not technically better and more versatile. Have you looked at the Sony A7R II or Fuji X-T2 or Olympus OM-D E-M1 II? All of those are in some ways better than almost any DLSR. Please note that I didn't say in every way; there are some truly great DSLRs. But to take the position that a camera is better just because it is a DSLR is just wrong.

    For me, and I think for many people, the allure of mirrorless is weight and size. I shot with Canon cameras and lenses until a few years ago. I reached a point in life where hauling around a lot of heavy gear became too much of a burden. I switched when I discovered that I could do everything I had been doing with my Canon gear with the Olympus system. The fact that I could save a considerable amount of money was icing on the cake.
     
  12. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #12
    Mirrorless systems are so seniors can still take photos. Or so I assume anyway, because all I ever hear about is the weight and size.

    These DSLR's are just so big and cumbersome. :p :D
    [​IMG]
    Retouch
    by Adam Campbell, on Flickr
     
  13. Hughmac macrumors demi-god

    Hughmac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    #13
    As a near senior myself, I totally agree with you ;)

    Cheers :)

    Hugh
     
  14. TAZ911 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    #14
    For me the mirrorless cameras offer the speed of a DSLR, high quality images (for hobby work) in a close to point and shoot package. I like my DSLR but I find it generally annoying to carry around. It's either in a case which means not ready or I'm banging it into cliff sides, trees... not fun. I was this close to buying a Sony a6000 as a replacement for my aging Nikon. Then I realized I was shooting 90% of my pics/vids... with my phone. So now I'm thinking an iPhone 7+ might be the ticket. Plus it would get my son off of my wife's phone all the time.
     
  15. kohlson macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    #15
    I chose a mirrorless because on a 45-mile 7-day backpack trip, every ounce counts - probably because I am one of those seniors. Great High Sierra shots of landscape and family. No doubt there are other cameras that take better pictures, but the size and weight meant this was the one I had with me!
     
  16. ocabj macrumors 6502a

    ocabj

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    #16
    Even though my Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO is on the large side of the spectrum of MFT lenses, that lens with my Olympus E-M10 Mark II is still significantly smaller than my Canon 5D3 and 24-105 f/4L IS II.

    I have forced myself to use the Olympus setup even when I'm at home doing product photography, and I have not really found it lacking compared to the full frame dSLR in most scenarios.
     
  17. Laird Knox macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #17
    I prefer the larger sensor for night work. Otherwise both formats have plenty of fabulous systems.
     
  18. Freida thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    #18
    I kinda have that understanding too. Size and weight is pretty much all I hear. So if I wanna upgrade my gear from D90 to D750 + 24-70 2.8 then unless i care about size and weight then there really is no reason for me to go mirrorless especially since those cameras cost the same or more than the D750 itself. Right?
     
  19. BorderingOn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2016
    Location:
    BaseCamp Pro
    #19
    Neither "DSLR" or "mirrorless" imply anything as far as quality. Both range from crap to stellar. What mirrorless does imply is smaller, lighter, and less complex (mechanically). I think for anyone who isn't interested in expensive (aka large and heavy) lenses, mirrorless makes sense. If you are interested in large lenses with large zoom or aperture, of which many can be adapted to mirrorless, what good is a tiny body?

    I don't see either as "better." There are just too many variables depending on what you are willing to carry and what you want to photograph.

    Just for fun to contrast some of the photos above :D

    [​IMG]
     
  20. windowpain macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #20
    I have 2 Nikon (crop sensor) dslrs, along with a few nikon mirrorless cameras.
    I find myself using the mirrorlesses a lot more mostly due to the size and weight and the autofocusing speed.
    The dslr is 'better', as in better image quality, bigger dynamic range etc. but the mirrorless is good enough for my uses. Mostly now baby/toddler shots, the af speed is very important, along with the burst modes. They are very responsive.

    I find the dslr is more comfortable to hold (due to the larger size) and has better controls (more buttons, less menus).. The mirrorlesses were also cheaper, I bought them used for very little money. (I have more expensive filters!)
    I frequently just use an iPhone instead of taking out a larger camera..as again it is smaller and lighter..

    You know what they say; the best camera is the one you left at home.

    To be honest for my use any mirrorless or dslr from the past 10 years is good enough. In good light there isn't a whole lot between them.*

    *for my uses.
     
  21. dwig macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Location:
    Key West FL
    #21
    Correct.

    Also, neither class sets any limits on sensor size. Most of the common ignorance about this comes from the fact that the birth of the interchangeable lens mirrorless digital cameras (not counting early digital "technical/view" cameras) began with the Panasonic and Olympus micro4/3 format cameras. Their market success has led to other manufacturers introducing first APS-c format models and then "Full Frame" models, with a few offerings with even larger sensors coming.

    Lenses for mirrorless cameras can be somewhat smaller than those for DSLRs because they don't have to incorporate any optical gymnastics to keep the rear element far enough from the sensor to to clear the mirror. This doesn't mean that they are always small, though. Check out this.
     
  22. Hughmac macrumors demi-god

    Hughmac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    #22
    No, a mirrorless camera does not have to cost as much as a D750; in fact they are generally a lot cheaper to buy, but quality will vary with price as with anything.

    Cheers :)

    Hugh
     
  23. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #23
    I always think back to when I used SLR cameras and medium format camersas for work and just how much heavier things were back then. Often camera bodies were heavier, lenses were heavier, flash either on camera or side attached, batterie packs etc. It was not uncommon for wedding photographers to carry two cameras (both set with flash), light meters, packs of films 2-3 lenses and more. For those of us who did as well production stills, blimp enclosures were added to the mix. Today, when I see people upset about the weight of their cameras I smile. They really do have it better now than before but there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't want it even lighter if it can be. I actually prefer a bit of weight on cameras as it helped me steady the camera for slower shutter speeds as needed. - Once you put a particular bit of film in the camera, you had to know how to pretty much make everything work with the ASA of that film and know your craft. Those were truly fun days.
     
  24. ApfelKuchen macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Location:
    Between the coasts
    #24
    It's not madness. Whether a DSLR or mirrorless is of better quality is purely up to the camera maker. For a long time, the major camera makers simply refused to make a non-DSLR with the quality and features of their DSLRs. That's finally changed.

    Why spend $2000 on a mirrorless? No reason not to, if it delivers the same or better performance and features as a $2,000 DSLR. And there is no engineering reason why it can't.

    You can put the same sensor and image processor into a mirrorless as a DSLR, just as you could put the same film into an SLR or a 35mm rangefinder. Was a Nikon F "better" than a Leica M3? No, they both had great lenses, great mechanisms, and shot the same film. After that, each had its advantages and disadvantages.
     
  25. whg macrumors regular

    whg

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #25
    What about sport photography? Is the Olympus M1 II fit for this, or is a Nikon D500 or Canon 5DMIV or better still needed. I have an Olympus M5, too, and its focusing system is not good enough for fast moving targets. My GH4 is already much better, but still not there. My Canon 5DIII is very good in this department, and also much better for low light shooting, but I must confess that nowadays I mostly use the GH4 if I leave the house, or just the iPhone7+.
     

Share This Page