View Full Version : I Think I Want A Mirrorless Camera
My camera is a Nikon DX1 which is as heavy as an anvil, been through the repair shop a few times, on it's fourth or fifth battery pack and for the third time, needs a new charger. I love it, but it's time for a new camera. I haven't kept up with the newest developments, so I went online for a crash course and mirrorless cameras, which I know nothing about, caught my attention. I thought about starting a DSLR vs Mirrorless thread, but as DSLRs are being phased out, I'm not sure it's worth pursuing.
It looks like I want a mirrorless camera so I started this discussion to learn more. I've never used one, let alone actually touched one. I'd like to hear from anyone with experience with mirrorless cameras, why you chose mirrorless or why you didn't- basically, what's The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
I also encourage anyone with questions to ask.
I've been shooting with a Nikon since the early 80s, but I'd like to hear about other makes.
Thanks
My 1DX3 operates as both mirrored and mirrorless. The real necessity is to have good glass. Most any camera can take excellent pictures with good glass.
Mirrorless doesn’t impress me as anything but a way to get you to spend more money on new glass.
Cameras are tools just like rifles. It takes knowledge, skill and practice to yield excellent results.
There you have my opinion on the matter.
My 1DX3 operates as both mirrored and mirrorless. The real necessity is to have good glass. Most any camera can take excellent pictures with good glass.
Mirrorless doesn’t impress me as anything but a way to get you to spend more money on new glass.
Cameras are tools just like rifles. It takes knowledge, skill and practice to yield excellent results.
There you have my opinion on the matter.
The 1D series of cameras are all EF lens cameras, the mirrorless bodies all use the RF. Mirror lockup isn't the same thing, and while I do love the 1D models for their absolute durability and beastly batteries, they are no longer cutting edge. The new RF glass is cleaner, and the sensors are better due to mounting and interface (according to Canon).
What I don't like is that the R5 out performs the R3 in image size, which is what certain clients are demanding. No one ever says an image size is too high of quality. The R5 across the board seems to be the premier camera for Pros, while the R3 takes the pro look and adds very little (other than half the resolution).
For guys like HKGuns, and other pros, I think we are going to be forced to play the waiting game from Canon as they build up the R1. At this point, most cameras (mirrorless) are able to do 20FPS (frames per second), if not 30. Cameras like the R5 are also giving 8K screen grabs as an option. Canon needs to have the R1 pulling down large FPS and large resolution.
I will say that I had concern on how the autofocus was going to be, but I'm highly impressed with how it does (again on the R5). What I don't like is the camera layout and control interface. I am extremely comfortable using the 1D body cameras, and while its the finished product is what matters, swapping over to the R5 is a little more than inconvenient.
What kind of photography?
My camera is a Nikon DX1 which is as heavy as an anvil, been through the repair shop a few times, on it's fourth or fifth battery pack and for the third time, needs a new charger. I love it, but it's time for a new camera. I haven't kept up with the newest developments, so I went online for a crash course and mirrorless cameras, which I know nothing about, caught my attention. I thought about starting a DSLR vs Mirrorless thread, but as DSLRs are being phased out, I'm not sure it's worth pursuing.
It looks like I want a mirrorless camera so I started this discussion to learn more. I've never used one, let alone actually touched one. I'd like to hear from anyone with experience with mirrorless cameras, why you chose mirrorless or why you didn't- basically, what's The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
I also encourage anyone with questions to ask.
I've been shooting with a Nikon since the early 80s, but I'd like to hear about other makes.
Thanks
I can't help you at all on the Nikon side of things, I haven't touched a Nikon since the 90s, and a girlfriend ended up stealing it, but of course that is another story. That girl was crazy.
With Canon the easiest way to tell what is or isn't a mirrorless camera is if it starts with an R (with a few small body exceptions). Canon has been explaining for some time now their mirrorless cameras are more than just mirrorless. They are a new way of building cameras and are using all new technology. To give you an example of how substantial the difference is, I'll drop some specs below:
Canon 1Dx3 (which is a phenomenal camera and was considered the top of the line)
Digic X processor (canons top of the line processor)
191 Auto Focus points
Image stabilization available only via lens
20 megapixel
CMOS sensor
Best battery available
5.5k video
Resolution size of 5472 x 2886
Best weather proofing around, this is the camera you take to the Congo or the Artic.
Canon R5 not quite top of the line, but beats everything else canon makes via resolution and features
Digic X processor same as the 1Dx3
5,940 Auto Focus points which are each selectable
Image stabilization via 5 axis in body which provides up to 8 stops of camera shake (use lens and in body stabilization if available) That allows for much lower light shooting indoors or out
44.8 Mega Pixel lens (making it a working pros dream)
Dual Pixel CMOS sensor (something the older cameras couldn't do due to lens to mirror mounting space)
generic battery with much lower life than the 1D larger batteries, most pros are buying a grip which makes vertical shooting easier and also allows for two batteries to be used.
Resolution size of 8192 x 5464
Body is NOT up to 1D standards (nothing else is), but is still considered weatherproof
Bluetooth and Wifi are standard
8K video
Again with the above I want to point out the 1D series cameras have always been the premier camera body which Canon makes, and they cost roughly $8,000. The Canon R5 is $3,900, which is still no small amount of change, but you can still buy two of them for the price of the 1Dx3. The 1D mirrorless body will probably be called the R1, and I'm sure that will also be around $8k or higher. The R1 and 1D bodies are for photographers who make a living with their tools. It doesn't make them the best camera for most people, though showing up with a few of them does tend to give bragging rights.
Very recently I traded in ALL of my Canon non-mirrorless bodies (a few various 1D models), and with the technology increases, those bodies were worth very little. The L lens (canons top of the line lenses are "L" models) brought much more money, but to be honest, since the old EF platform is dead, they were worth much less than I liked. The only lens I kept was my trusty 600mm F4 L EF lens, and I had to pick up an adapter to use it.
My recommendation to pro photographers, meaning guys actually making a good chunk of money is to make sure your gear is paid off, that you have made a solid return on your camera to get its full worth, and then look at changing. If needed, you can use an adapter like guys did 30 years ago switching to digital. They kept a bunch of the old F mount lenses and used them until they trusted and saw benefit to the new (at that time) EF body cameras. Its a tax write off, but its still going to be expensive to make the change. I waited for as long as a possibly could before making the change. If you are shooting portraits all day long in a mall, you don't need the new bodies. I didn't think I needed the new body and lenses, then I did a shoot for one of the largest weapon manufacturers and when they got the 20+ MP resolution files, they asked for the full size ones... That was the end of my waffling or being on the fence.
Sorry for rambling on for so long, this probably would have worked better over beers and burgers, but alas here we are on the internet instead. I can sum it up by saying mirrorless is where its at. I can cry about it, but it won't change anything. The image quality justified the purchase, and everything else is just gravy. I find I do use a bunch of the new features, but I'm still waiting for the R1 to come out. I want the beast feel back in my hands again.
Thanks for reading down this far!
What kind of photography?
At the end of the day, the newer built mirrorless cameras are going to beat anything else (meaning price for price and body for body). Its simply newer technology, and I don't think any of the major players are going to manufacturer any more mirror bodied cameras. There just isn't a need for the old tech. Five years from now we won't be seeing anything but low end mirror bodies being used, if even that.
I do agree that action versus portrait are two different animals, but in the case of Canon, the R5 does both better than my 1D bodies ever could. Again, I think its just technological advancement.
By coincidence, just got a Sony a6600. So far, very happy with it. My full sized Nikon DSLR never gets used due to it's size and weight. Now that have the Sony, and have seen what it's capable, gonna get rid of the Nikon. The Sony is way more camera than I could ever need, but I prefer to grow up to it vs be/feel limited. For a lot less $, others in the 6000 line up offer a better bargain for sure.
The 1D series of cameras are all EF lens cameras, the mirrorless bodies all use the RF. Mirror lockup isn't the same thing, and while I do love the 1D models for their absolute durability and beastly batteries, they are no longer cutting edge. The new RF glass is cleaner, and the sensors are better due to mounting and interface (according to Canon).
What I don't like is that the R5 out performs the R3 in image size, which is what certain clients are demanding. No one ever says an image size is too high of quality. The R5 across the board seems to be the premier camera for Pros, while the R3 takes the pro look and adds very little (other than half the resolution).
For guys like HKGuns, and other pros, I think we are going to be forced to play the waiting game from Canon as they build up the R1. At this point, most cameras (mirrorless) are able to do 20FPS (frames per second), if not 30. Cameras like the R5 are also giving 8K screen grabs as an option. Canon needs to have the R1 pulling down large FPS and large resolution.
I will say that I had concern on how the autofocus was going to be, but I'm highly impressed with how it does (again on the R5). What I don't like is the camera layout and control interface. I am extremely comfortable using the 1D body cameras, and while its the finished product is what matters, swapping over to the R5 is a little more than inconvenient.
I'll be retired in ~2 years unless I die playing in traffic before then. I'm simply not willing to spend the coin Canon is asking to change out all of my glass and I could easily afford it. Those litte "R" bodies are cute and I can absolutely see why you would have issues swapping back and forth.
I'm not married to mirrors by any stretch and I like the eye and face focus features of the 1DX3 in video and live view modes. If Canon produce an R1 it better be 1D form factor and be able to take EF lenses. :)
I'll be retired in ~2 years unless I die playing in traffic before then. I'm simply not willing to spend the coin Canon is asking to change out all of my glass and I could easily afford it. Those litte "R" bodies are cute and I can absolutely see why you would have issues swapping back and forth.
I'm not married to mirrors by any stretch and I like the eye and face focus features of the 1DX3 in video and live view modes. If Canon produce an R1 it better be 1D form factor and be able to take EF lenses. :)
Eye focus is a pretty big advancement, and I'm shocked at how well it locks on in its latest iterations.
There won't be another 1Dx body made by Canon, the line up dies with the 1Dx3. The R1 will be the start of what you and I consider 1D bodies, and they are only going to come with the RF lens mounts. Not the end of the world when the adapters work so well, but I'm guessing you like adapters about as much as I do. I make the exception for the 600L, but only because it holds a special place in my heart.
Whats odd to me, is that the auto iso still plays by the old style rules of 1/x where as x=focal length. I would much rather have an option where the camera sensor is reading "focus" and stability, and dropping the iso to a lower yet functional setting.
Eye focus is a pretty big advancement, and I'm shocked at how well it locks on in its latest iterations.
There won't be another 1Dx body made by Canon, the line up dies with the 1Dx3. The R1 will be the start of what you and I consider 1D bodies, and they are only going to come with the RF lens mounts. Not the end of the world when the adapters work so well, but I'm guessing you like adapters about as much as I do. I make the exception for the 600L, but only because it holds a special place in my heart.
Whats odd to me, is that the auto iso still plays by the old style rules of 1/x where as x=focal length. I would much rather have an option where the camera sensor is reading "focus" and stability, and dropping the iso to a lower yet functional setting.
Which is exactly why I upgraded my perfectly functional 1DIV to the 1DX3.
Yeah, I'll use adapters (air only, no glass) on my manual focus vintage glass out of necessity, otherwise, not so much. One of the fun things I discovered during the pandemic is some really great vintage glass. (Super Takumars / Pentacon / Yashinon / Helios)
The manual focus forces me to slow down and think more about what I am doing. I also got into buying nasty lenses with fungus cheap, tearing them apart and restoring them to as new condition.
The character of the photo's taken with these lenses is astounding and can also inspire my creative side, which is difficult.
https://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4132991398-5.jpg
https://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2155366359-5.jpg
https://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2155366195-5.jpg
Which is exactly why I upgraded my perfectly functional 1DIV to the 1DX3.
Yeah, I'll use adapters (air only, no glass) on my manual focus vintage glass out of necessity, otherwise, not so much. One of the fun things I discovered during the pandemic is some really great vintage glass. (Super Takumars / Pentacon / Yashinon / Helios)
The manual focus forces me to slow down and think more about what I am doing. I also got into buying nasty lenses with fungus cheap, tearing them apart and restoring them to as new condition.
The character of the photo's taken with these lenses is astounding and can also inspire my creative side, which is difficult.
https://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4132991398-5.jpg
https://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2155366359-5.jpg
https://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2155366195-5.jpg
Very cool cleaning the glass up!!!
I was shooting 1Ds3 and 1Dx, and there was a need to upgrade, so making the jump made sense on our end. My wife was also tired of every camera being a brute heavyweight. By the time Canon rolls out a R1, they should be another leap forward in technology, and if not, I won't buy it. If anything, I would pick up a second body R5 over the R3.
Very cool cleaning the glass up!!!
I was shooting 1Ds3 and 1Dx, and there was a need to upgrade, so making the jump made sense on our end. My wife was also tired of every camera being a brute heavyweight. By the time Canon rolls out a R1, they should be another leap forward in technology, and if not, I won't buy it. If anything, I would pick up a second body R5 over the R3.
Yeah my wife would not want to lug the 1D around very long either.
But she is generally quite happy with iPhone photos! [emoji3]
Worth keeping in mind what AF lenses you already have that you might want to adapt to the new mirrorless system.
With Canon it's almost seamless as all the old DSLR AF lenses have internal AF motors, with Nikon on the other hand there's currently no adapter available that allow AF with the old screw driven lenses. Sony has done a mixed approach with 2 current adapters, LA-EA 4 that can AF any lens on any camera and LA-EA 5 that can AF lenses with internal motors on any camera and screw driven lenses on only the very latest cameras.
Been shooting full mirrorless since May when I picked up a Sony A7RIV and a kit of 3 lenses and the advance in AF from my old gear is night and day, not that my "old" Sony A99ii (kind of a hybrid as it uses an electronic viewfinder but has a fixed semi translucent mirror inside) was a slouch but the advancement in things like Eye AF and tracking is like black magic! Plus it's rather nice to see nearly exactly what the shot will look like through the viewfinder even before you take the shot, no more need for chimping afterwards!
The one thing it does seem to have a problem with though is if the subject is far enough out of focus using long focal lengths that it's nearly 100% a blur. Think a small subject up close with the lens focused close to infinity, almost always the camera will ignore that fuzzy thing right under the focus spot and instead lock onto something in the background. I do mainly birding so it's kind of annoying and has lost me a fair few up close shots over the last 6 months.
Colt Carson
11-29-21, 20:44
Who knew gun guys were so into photography…
I haven’t touched my photography equipment since Canon supported a political group fueling the riots of 2020. Time has softened me, and I’ve been thinking lately about breaking out the camera. I’ve been paid for portrait work, but for me photography is a hobby. I prefer close-up (macro) and landscape photography. I don’t see myself investing in the new technology unless my current system cr@ps the bed. I’m old-school anyway, in fact years ago I was unsatisfied with the corner sharpness (at 100%) of my L zoom lens and sold my zooms for a few L prime lenses. I’m still interested in learning about the new technology/equipment, you know…
just in case.
Who knew gun guys were so into photography…
I haven’t touched my photography equipment since Canon supported a political group fueling the riots of 2020. Time has softened me, and I’ve been thinking lately about breaking out the camera. I’ve been paid for portrait work, but for me photography is a hobby. I prefer close-up (macro) and landscape photography. I don’t see myself investing in the new technology unless my current system cr@ps the bed. I’m old-school anyway, in fact years ago I was unsatisfied with the corner sharpness (at 100%) of my L zoom lens and sold my zooms for a few L prime lenses. I’m still interested in learning about the new technology/equipment, you know…
just in case.
Technology isn't just progress, it is money, and lots of it. Additionally, technology advances so quickly in the photo world, that bodies retain very little value after a few years. Try selling off a camera that is 5 or 10 years old... it is almost painful.
Colt Carson
11-30-21, 08:13
Yes, I haven’t used my first digital camera (EOS 5D) in many years, but keep it for sentimental reasons as it’s worth very little.
Technology isn't just progress, it is money, and lots of it. Additionally, technology advances so quickly in the photo world, that bodies retain very little value after a few years. Try selling off a camera that is 5 or 10 years old... it is almost painful.
I have a Nikon F100 with very little use on it, one of the best bodies they ever made, can't give it away. For anyone still shooting 35mm film, an outstanding camera.
Colt Carson
11-30-21, 10:16
When I shot on film, I had a nice place to have it developed. If I shot on film today, I guess it would be Walmart or through the mail. The funny thing is that for the artistic minded folks, things go out and in of style.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.