Okay, let's talk mirrorless!

[senojbor]

Sorry if this subject has been done to death somewhere in this category!
45 odd years ago I bought my first serious SLR, it was Canon and I've stuck with the make ever since.
(It replaced a Russian built Zenit-E)
I never thought though Digital cameras would really catch on at first and I couldn't get my head around the concept.
Needless to say I was very wrong and it really opened up photography to the masses.
There must be billions of them if you count camera phones
And as a consequence there are now many fabulously talented amateur photographers.
Now we are witnessing a change to mirrorless, the biggest advancement since the film/digital switchover in my humble opinion.
But again, despite some huge advantages (and disadvantages) I ask myself, will it really take off? Or will it be sort of an optional extra amateurs and pros alike?
I myself have a couple of mirrorless cameras and I find them extremely useful for traveling. Well I did do before this bloody pandemic!
Despite the advantages and the obvious quality of images they are capable of I'm not too sure that they will ever replace the DSLR anytime soon. But then again I was wrong before!

[dje]

Hi Rob

I think it's fair to say that mirrorless has already taken off, well and truly. A recent article in PetaPixel claims that of the 8.6 million interchangeable lens cameras sold in 2019, 46% were mirrorless.

I think it will be a few years before new sales of DSLR's almost disappear but I think mirrorless is where the major companies are focussed with development work, including new lenses for the new mounts.

Dave

[xpatUSA]

Hi Rob

I think it's fair to say that mirrorless has already taken off, well and truly.

Agreed.

I think it will be a few years before new sales of DSLR's almost disappear but I think mirrorless is where the major companies are focussed with development work, including new lenses for the new mounts.

Dave

The minor company Sigma too. Sigma introduced mirrorless ILCs a few years ago and is now a member of the 'L' mount Alliance along with two biggies -Leica and Panasonic.

[senojbor]

I agree Dave and Ted. ML have great advantages which will appeal to many. Light and very portable. I take mine everywhere.
I can also see them selling really well but I've yet to see them used professionally.
I don't know enough about them and I'm not sure about whether they can make long lenes lighter to match them weight wise?
Mine were bought for travelling. I had a trip to the Himalayas planned which they would have been perfect for long haul and trekking.
I have the canon 70mm/200mm which I use a lot and I can buy an adaptor to use with ML but it defeats the object of portability because of size and weight.

[xpatUSA]

I agree Dave and Ted. ML have great advantages which will appeal to many. Light and very portable. I take mine everywhere.
I don't know enough about them and I'm not sure about whether they can make long lenes lighter to match them weight wise?
Mine were bought for travelling. I had a trip to the Himalayas planned which they would have been perfect for long haul and trekking.
I have the canon 70mm/200mm which I use a lot and I can buy an adaptor to use with ML but it defeats the object of portability because of size and weight.

Rob, have you considered micro four-thirds? The lenses are by-and-large tiny -compared with 135 format (35mm).

I have recently purchased a Panasonic Lumix DC-G9, a G X Vario 12-35mm and I already had a "Leica" 45mm macro. As you know, older M42-mount lenses fit with an adapter, and are small enough - my Takumar 24mm and Zeiss Jena 35mm Flektagon being no exceptions.

I suppose you might only be interested in 35mm format, though?

[DanK]

ML have great advantages which will appeal to many. Light and very portable. I take mine everywhere.
I can also see them selling really well but I've yet to see them used professionally.
I don't know enough about them and I'm not sure about whether they can make long lenes lighter to match them weight wise?

Not much that lighter, I'm afraid.

This is something I looked into in some detail. I'm not young and have a bad back, so the weight of my equipment becomes more annoying every year. I recently packed up to go to western Massachusetts and weighed my Pelican case before leaving. Just under 23 pounds, which is to say a bit over 10 kg. And that didn't include the tripod and ball head.

However, looking at just the body weight is misleading, and at least in the case of Canon, the total weights aren't that different. My most often used combination is a 5d Mark IV with an EF 24-105 f/4 lens. That's 1595g in total. The R5--the closest equivalent in the mirrorless line-up-- with the RF 24-105 totals 1438g, which is about a 10% reduction--157g, or about 1/3 pound. Not negligible, but not nearly enough to get me to trade my equipment in. I tried to do the same calculation with my second-most-used lens, EF 70-200 f/4 IS, but there isn't an R mount equivalent yet.

Re the weight of lenses: this depends on design. Canon is making some RF (mirrorless) lenses that are lighter than their EF equivalents. However, I have no idea why--that is, are they taking advantage of the shorter flange-to-sensor distance, or does this just reflect general advances in lens design? Or for that matter, differences in materials? I just don't know.

To get real weight savings, you have to go to a smaller format sensor, as Ted suggests. That's a whole different set of trade-offs.

Yes, some pros use mirrorless.

Will DSLRs disappear? Beats me, although I strongly suspect they'll be around longer than me. It might be relevant that half a century ago, the increasing availability of affordable DSLRs had many people thinking that the days of rangefinder cameras were numbered. Rangefinders have many disadvantages, of course. But today you can spend of US $8,000 for Leica rangefinder camera bodies.

[xpatUSA]

Not much that lighter, I'm afraid.

This is something I looked into in some detail. I'm not young and have a bad back, so the weight of my equipment becomes more annoying every year. I recently packed up to go to western Massachusetts and weighed my Pelican case before leaving. Just under 23 pounds, which is to say a bit over 10 kg.

Just to give Rob an idea about micro four-thirds, Here's my 20MP Lumix DC-G9 in a Lowepro bag with a couple lenses, small flash, spare batteries, caps, hood and literature:



Pardon the blur!

About 12" by 8" by 6". Gross weight 4lb 12oz. In that same bag -I used to pack the smaller DMC-G1 and three lenses including a 14-140mm (28-280mm equiv).

[DanK]

It seems that the mirrorless market may be bifurcating into micro four thirds and full frame, with a decreasing emphasis on APS-C. It makes sense from a marketing perspective, but I find it disappointing. The trade-offs between FF and APS-C are smaller.

My only MFT is a first-generation Lumix LX-100, which produces images that are acceptable but visibly inferior to those from my FF camera, especially in low light. However, that's an old generation of sensor, and I suspect that newer MFT sensor are much better.

[Manfred M]

If one looks at this from the camera manufacturer's standpoint, there is absolutely no question that mirrorless is the way to go.

It's their main growth market right now; people are flocking to them for all the right and wrong reasons. They sell at a premium price whereas they cost a lot less to manufacture (I have seen estimates that suggest that they contain between 25% and 33% fewer parts. All l that hardware involving mirrors, pentaprisms (or pentamirrors) and phase detect autofocus, etc. are no longer needed. Selling something that costs less to make for the same price or more than competing products is a marketer's dream.

The manufacturers have introduced new lens mounts to take advantage of the reduced flange to sensor distance and have introduced a whole line of new lenses that take advantage of the improved optical performance that this provides (hint: Leica figured this out decades ago and this was one of the main reasons that their M series of rangefinder cameras created such sharp images).

After a life time of shooting SLR cameras, the switch to a DSLR over 10 years ago was a relatively easy transition. I also picked up a mirrorless camera in early 2014 so have experience with both approaches. My DSLRs were both crop and full-frame where my mirrorless was a micro four-thirds design (selected because of size and weight restrictions). At the time the main disadvantages of the mirrorless were shorter battery life, slower autofocus, electronic viewfinder performance and lack of space on the camera body for direct controls, so many functions can only be accessed via a menu (partially due to the differences in size between a mFT body and FF body). Mirrorless is a lot more quiet, especially in electronic shutter mode.

These downsides of the mirrorless cameras have been mitigated through technological advances in battery, sensor and display technology. The advantages of mirrorless cameras have advanced through increased processing power - eye detect autofocus., for example. If one looks at the latest mirrorless Hasselblad and Fujifilm medium format cameras, these cameras are about the same size as the pro full-frame DSLRs that they compete against. Right now the only market space where mirrorless cameras are not competitive are for the high end sports / wildlife photographers where the faster autofocus, optical viewfinder and longer battery life still matter. How long this will continue, is anyone's guess, but for the rest of the market, especially the prosumer market, mirrorless seems to be where the camera manufacturers are advancing this technology.

I expect that my next camera body is likely to be mirrorless, but that might be because DSLRs might not be offered in the price point that I will be looking at, not just because of the features.

[Manfred M]

Just to give Rob an idea about micro four-thirds, Here's my 20MP Lumix DC-G9 in a Lowepro bag with a couple lenses, small flash, spare batteries, caps, hood and literature:


Pardon the blur!

About 12" by 8" by 6". Gross weight 4lb 12oz. In that same bag -I used to pack the smaller DMC-G1 and three lenses including a 14-140mm (28-280mm equiv).

Agreed Ted - that is the one reason I went with the Panasonic GX7, when I picked it up in early 2014. It weighed about 400g / 1 lbs less with the 14-140mm lens than my wife's Nikon D90 with the 18 - 200mm lens. When living out of a backpack for 2 months (traveling through South Asia), size and weight were important and there was no way I was going to take my full-frame D800 body along. I also had a D90 body.

Finances were also a consideration. I already owned the Panasonic 14-140mm and 100 - 300mm lenses that I used on my Panasonic video camera. The GX-7 body cost less than a second 18-200mm lens.

That being said, the real downside for me with the mFT format is image quality. For someone like yourself, who does not print, it makes no difference, but for someone like me who regularly churns out A3+ and 17" x 22" prints, full frame is definitely the way to go.

If I were transitioning from film to digital right now and had to start from scratch, I would not even bother with FF gear, but would go with either the Hasselblad X1-D or the Fujiflim GFX. I understand that Hasselblad lenses are built for them by Fujifilm.

[rpcrowe]

When I first delved into Sony mirrorless cameras, I used the Sony A6500 as an adjunct to my Canon DSLR kit... I started with an adapter to use my Canon EOS lenses on the A6500 but, soon tried some native e-mount lenses... My first venture was the 50mm f/1.8 OSS lens and I really liked it. Next came the Sony 85mm f/1.8 which is a beautiful lens... At first. I liked Sony because of the excellent focusing capabilities such as Eye-AF but, soon began to see other advantages to the Sony mirrorless system...

Originally, the major drawback to my e-mount kit was the lack of a reasonably priced and reasonably sized mid-range zoom lens. I solved the problem with my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens which I use on both full frame and APSC Sony mirrorless cameras.

Although I had shot with Canon gear since the 1960's (first Canon was the FX 35mm SLR) I totally converted to Sony while I could still get good prices for my Canon gear...

IMO... The advent of third party glass has gone a long way to establishing Sony Mirrorless cameras as a viable option for both pro and amateur photographers.

However, if form factor is the most important choice - Sony has released two mid-range zooms - one for full frame to accompany the A6600 and one for full frame to go along with the A7C. Each of these zooms makes a lightweight combination with a Sony mirrorless camera. There are also a great number of Tamron and Sigma lenses for e-mount cameras which are excellent and with decent form factors (especially in the case pf the Tamron offerings) and at decent price points. Even Rokinon/Samyang are offering great e-mount lenses while there are also other options to consider such as the Viltrox 85mm f/1.8, which are lightweight and reasonably priced. The ease of using legacy lenses with Sony mirrorless cameras is another advantage to those folks who enjoy the rebirth of this older glass,

However, I am totally happy with both the weight and the performance of the Tamron 28-75mm lens..

I use a Sony A6600 + Sony 70-350mm lens to replace the Canon 7D and 100-400mm lens. I also have a 70-200mm f/4 Sony which I am very fond of but, could replace it with the 70-180mm f/2.8 Tamron. In fact. I could be quite happy shooting with the Tamron trinity of 17-28mm, 28-75mm and 70-180mm lenses...

[DanK]

That being said, the real downside for me with the mFT format is image quality. For someone like yourself, who does not print, it makes no difference, but for someone like me who regularly churns out A3+ and 17" x 22" prints, full frame is definitely the way to go.

That's exactly my concern. I print A3+ (13 x 19) often, and 17 x 22 sometimes. I've managed to get a good 13 x 19 print from a substantially cropped MFT image, but that took a LOT of postprocessing work, and if one looks closely, it isn't up to the quality of my FF prints. It's an image that is chock full of detail, and I think that's what makes the smaller-scale flaws less apparent. 11 x 14 prints of images with little cropping come out fine, provided the light is good enough to stay at base ISO.

However, all of this is with an old MFT sensor, and I'm comparing it to a fairly recent FF sensor, which isn't a good comparison. I'd like to see the quality of the best of the current MFT sensors when printed large.

[rpcrowe]

If one was really searching for a lightweight full frame travel kit, he/she needs to look no further than the full frame Sony A7C with Tamron 28-200mm lens plus a fast Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens for low light and night shooting.

The total weight of that kit would be just about 4-pounds or less than two kilos... If portraiture is your thing, you could add an 85mm f/1.4 Rokinon or 85mm f/1.8 Sony lens for not a great deal of additional weight...

[senojbor]

If one was really searching for a lightweight full frame travel kit, he/she needs to look no further than the full frame Sony A7C with Tamron 28-200mm lens plus a fast Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens for low light and night shooting.

The total weight of that kit would be just about 4-pounds or less than two kilos... If portraiture is your thing, you could add an 85mm f/1.4 Rokinon or 85mm f/1.8 Sony lens for not a great deal of additional weight...

Thanks, I'm going to have a look at that.

[senojbor]

If one was really searching for a lightweight full frame travel kit, he/she needs to look no further than the full frame Sony A7C with Tamron 28-200mm lens plus a fast Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens for low light and night shooting.

The total weight of that kit would be just about 4-pounds or less than two kilos... If portraiture is your thing, you could add an 85mm f/1.4 Rokinon or 85mm f/1.8 Sony lens for not a great deal of additional weight...

Off topic Richard, I love you're dogs! These are mine (taken with a mirrorless)

[rpcrowe]

They are great looking dogs... Are they wheaten terriers? I love terriers - I have a rough coated Jack Russell terrier.

[Chataignier]

A long time Canon user (starting with an AE-1) I switched to a Fuji X-T3 18m ago and have no regrets at all. Size and weight were key considerations and apart from the 100-400mm which weighs a ton, there really is a huge saving. OK, it's APS, but I print up to 30 x 45cm (A3 ish for those who still work in old money) and do not see any difference in quality compared to friends who have stuck with FF.
Thanks to Viltrox who make an adaptor for Canon lenses on the Fuji that preserves auto focus and stabilisation, I've kept my Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and have a 50mm f1.8 for portraits and use both regularly.
I've no doubt that the latest generation FF outperform the latest APS (a good big-un always beats a good little-un) but my comparison is latest APS against 5yr old FF and I'm more than satisfied.