[Rondec]

People have a tendency to overstate the differences between mirrorless and SLR cameras. There are small mirrorless cameras, but there are large ones too. If you use a smaller sensor and have a short registration distance (aka micro four thirds), you can make pretty small cameras with small wide angle lenses. But part of the size difference does come because the lenses are relatively slow. If you have an f2 prime on four thirds, it is the same as having an f4 prime on full frame -- only there aren't very many f4 primes out there.

But people in this thread are mixing up differences that come from changes in sensor size and registration distance with those that come from having lost the mirror.

[surfar]

lost the mirror.

I'll have a look round for you,i know it wont be in the mirrorless kit!

[derelict]

To answer the original question; mirrorless doesn't have any significant advantages. Unless you shoot close to a power outlet the size advantage is eaten up by the volume and weight of the two extra batteries you have to carry compared to a DSLR.

Oh sweet lord help us mirrorless shooters! I can get about 400, many times more, out of one battery. How many photos are you taking exactly? I just did a shoot with a pro whose work ended up in a catalog. No where near that many frames were taken. No where. I also shot using my EM10. Battery was completely fine. Maybe it is just me being primarily a film shooter. I do not take a bunch of shots when one will do. I take the time to frame and compose so only one shot will do. I do not monkey back and forth between eye piece and LCD to review my shot. Why? Because being mirrorless, I see EXACTLY what I am about to capture in the EVF. Exposure, level, framing, everything. Your DSLR shutter might be quicker than mine but I only need one shot.

[normhead]

Oh sweet lord help us mirrorless shooters! I can get about 400, many times more, out of one battery. How many photos are you taking exactly? I just did a shoot with a pro whose work ended up in a catalog. No where near that many frames were taken. No where. I also shot using my EM10. Battery was completely fine. Maybe it is just me being primarily a film shooter. I do not take a bunch of shots when one will do. I take the time to frame and compose so only one shot will do. I do not monkey back and forth between eye piece and LCD to review my shot. Why? Because being mirrorless, I see EXACTLY what I am about to capture in the EVF. Exposure, level, framing, everything. Your DSLR shutter might be quicker than mine but I only need one shot.

Don't ever try to make it in wildlife or bird photography.

Mirrorless may give you an approximation of what you will get in your final image, if you only shoot jpeg. If you shoot raw, what you can pull out of the shadows or rescue from the highlights in post processing. It's very rare the image I see on the back of the camera looks like what I finish with after post. Your argument seems to be that if you don't know what you're doing, mirrorless is better. I you have an EVF and you want to know what things look like, you can always switch to live view. The question for me is not do I want an exceltronic representation of the scene which I can have whenever I want, it's do i wish to deprive myself of an OVF. Mirrorless gives you no choice.

I know the advantage of using live view on my K-1 having many of the features of a mirrorless, with the mirror locked up fully out of the way. That hasn't convinced me I want to get rid of my mirror and OVF and just go completely mirrorless.

A DSLR can be operated as a mirrorless, a mirrorless can't be operated as a DSLR.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-20-2017 at 08:32 AM.

[derelict]

Don't ever try to make it in wildlife or bird photography.

Mirrorless may give you an approximation of what you will get in your final image, if you only shoot jpeg. If you shoot raw, what you can pull out of the shadows or rescue from the highlights in post processing. It's very rare the image I see on the back of the camera looks like what I finish with after post. Your argument seems to be that if you don't know what you're doing, mirrorless is better.

I do shoot RAW and only RAW. The thing is, with mirrorless, I can play with the shadows and highlights in the EVF adjusting the curves before taking the photo. Much better than shooting and hoping that you can recover some elements in PP. My argument has nothing to do with 'knowing what you are doing.' My argument is that mirrorless affords you the ability to see a much better approximation of the final product than a DSLR can and allows it to happen in the EVF as you are taking the photo. RAW can do many things but it cannot save a crappy photo.

As for birding and wildlife, what is the argument there? Requiring more batteries? Oh dear me! That 1/10 of a pound is going to be the difference! Oh please.

ANY modern camera is best for people who do not know what they are doing. There is no such thing as a bad camera anymore. All, in auto mode, take fantastic photos with meters that are pretty damn close to perfect. All that is left now is for people to bicker about things like having to carry an extra battery. If that is your sole reason for discounting a burgeoning, and possibly [the] future, market, then have at it. Just know that that reason is pretty weak. The OP asked for differences. Differences were given. Sure, shooting RAW can solve many things but the reality is the closer to vision you can make a photo, the less PP you have to do. If I can play with the curve ahead of time, in camera while taking the shot, I will know exactly what to do when I sit down and load the card into LR. When you can do that AND reduce a full frame camera body to the size of the APSC KP, those strike me as good things. Mirrorless is making strides and is the future. I do not think that Sony, Olympus, Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Hasselblad would be investing in it so heavily if it were not. Pentax will eventually get there. Or not. If they do, and offer the features the others do as well, I will be back in the fold. Until then, I am a Pentax film shooter and an Olympus digital shooter. I really want a K7. I really also do not want to carry around a 2.25 lbs (without lens) body.

---------- Post added 09-20-17 at 11:52 AM ----------

he question for me is not do I want an exceltronic representation of the scene which I can have whenever I want, it's do i wish to deprive myself of an OVF. Mirrorless gives you no choice.

I know the advantage of using live view on my K-1 having many of the features of a mirrorless, with the mirror locked up fully out of the way. That hasn't convinced me I want to get rid of my mirror and OVF and just go completely mirrorless.

A DSLR can be operated as a mirrorless, a mirrorless can't be operated as a DSLR.

And as you operate your K1 in live view, you are consuming more battery life. What are the advantages of an OVF? It is not coverage as EVFs give 100%. It certainly is not that it bends reality as you will bend reality in PP all while looking at your frame in the digital space. It certainly is not some increase in shutter speed as the combination mechanical and electronic shutters on mirrorless are blindingly quick.

[Rondec]

I do shoot RAW and only RAW. The thing is, with mirrorless, I can play with the shadows and highlights in the EVF adjusting the curves before taking the photo. Much better than shooting and hoping that you can recover some elements in PP. My argument has nothing to do with 'knowing what you are doing.' My argument is that mirrorless affords you the ability to see a much better approximation of the final product than a DSLR can and allows it to happen in the EVF as you are taking the photo. RAW can do many things but it cannot save a crappy photo.

As for birding and wildlife, what is the argument there? Requiring more batteries? Oh dear me! That 1/10 of a pound is going to be the difference! Oh please.

ANY modern camera is best for people who do not know what they are doing. There is no such thing as a bad camera anymore. All, in auto mode, take fantastic photos with meters that are pretty damn close to perfect. All that is left now is for people to bicker about things like having to carry an extra battery. If that is your sole reason for discounting a burgeoning, and possibly [the] future, market, then have at it. Just know that that reason is pretty weak. The OP asked for differences. Differences were given. Sure, shooting RAW can solve many things but the reality is the closer to vision you can make a photo, the less PP you have to do. If I can play with the curve ahead of time, in camera while taking the shot, I will know exactly what to do when I sit down and load the card into LR. When you can do that AND reduce a full frame camera body to the size of the APSC KP, those strike me as good things. Mirrorless is making strides and is the future. I do not think that Sony, Olympus, Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Hasselblad would be investing in it so heavily if it were not. Pentax will eventually get there. Or not. If they do, and offer the features the others do as well, I will be back in the fold. Until then, I am a Pentax film shooter and an Olympus digital shooter. I really want a K7. I really also do not want to carry around a 2.25 lbs (without lens) body.

These are the sorts of things that don't have an answer. You like mirrorless cameras and EVFs, others don't so much. If you get a 15-30 f2.8 equivalent lens for your Olympus (do they make one?) it is going to make your travel kid pretty big, even though the camera body will still be small. When you don't have a mirror, you can make your registration distance shorter which of course leads to thinner cameras. But the cameras still need a certain amount of size based on the sensor size and the presence of shake reduction.

At the same time, there is a long history of small SLRs -- the kx, K-S1, and km all have been quite small -- certainly not much bigger than APS-C mirrorless cameras like Fuji and Sony offer.

[derelict]

These are the sorts of things that don't have an answer. You like mirrorless cameras and EVFs, others don't so much. If you get a 15-30 f2.8 equivalent lens for your Olympus (do they make one?) it is going to make your travel kid pretty big, even though the camera body will still be small. When you don't have a mirror, you can make your registration distance shorter which of course leads to thinner cameras. But the cameras still need a certain amount of size based on the sensor size and the presence of shake reduction.

At the same time, there is a long history of small SLRs -- the kx, K-S1, and km all have been quite small -- certainly not much bigger than APS-C mirrorless cameras like Fuji and Sony offer.

No doubt, it comes down to personal preference. There is a 7-14/ 2.8 in M4/3 mount. It is not all that big. M4/3 is not the end all be all camera. It is just what I choose to shoot with as I prize size and compactness over some DoF or DR loss. Advantages of the system in terms of what it can do is far more important to me. I also shoot with a Pentax MX, one of the smallest 35mm cameras made. I do, however, believe that mirrorless is going to be where everyone goes.

[normhead]

I do shoot RAW and only RAW. The thing is, with mirrorless, I can play with the shadows and highlights in the EVF adjusting the curves before taking the photo. Much better than shooting and hoping that you can recover some elements in PP. My argument has nothing to do with 'knowing what you are doing.' My argument is that mirrorless affords you the ability to see a much better approximation of the final product than a DSLR can and allows it to happen in the EVF as you are taking the photo. RAW can do many things but it cannot save a crappy photo.

As for birding and wildlife, what is the argument there? Requiring more batteries? Oh dear me! That 1/10 of a pound is going to be the difference! Oh please.

ANY modern camera is best for people who do not know what they are doing. There is no such thing as a bad camera anymore. All, in auto mode, take fantastic photos with meters that are pretty damn close to perfect. All that is left now is for people to bicker about things like having to carry an extra battery. If that is your sole reason for discounting a burgeoning, and possibly [the] future, market, then have at it. Just know that that reason is pretty weak. The OP asked for differences. Differences were given. Sure, shooting RAW can solve many things but the reality is the closer to vision you can make a photo, the less PP you have to do. If I can play with the curve ahead of time, in camera while taking the shot, I will know exactly what to do when I sit down and load the card into LR. When you can do that AND reduce a full frame camera body to the size of the APSC KP, those strike me as good things. Mirrorless is making strides and is the future. I do not think that Sony, Olympus, Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Hasselblad would be investing in it so heavily if it were not. Pentax will eventually get there. Or not. If they do, and offer the features the others do as well, I will be back in the fold. Until then, I am a Pentax film shooter and an Olympus digital shooter. I really want a K7. I really also do not want to carry around a 2.25 lbs (without lens) body.

---------- Post added 09-20-17 at 11:52 AM ----------



And as you operate your K1 in live view, you are consuming more battery life. What are the advantages of an OVF? It is not coverage as EVFs give 100%. It certainly is not that it bends reality as you will bend reality in PP all while looking at your frame in the digital space. It certainly is not some increase in shutter speed as the combination mechanical and electronic shutters on mirrorless are blindingly quick.

The disadvantage of an EVF is, I'm out in nature. An OVF allows me to see what's there, not what a sensor can capture And I continue to enjoy nature looking through wide angle lens or telephoto. If I want to see electronics, I sit on my sofa. It's all about my enjoyment of the process.

MY original digital cameras were mirrorless point and shoots. Digital has always had mirrorless options. Whether or not they are the future is yet to be determined. They certainly won't be part of my future. Whether or not it's increasing or decreasing is another question entirely, and I'd have to ask "starting form when?" Certainly when I bought my first Casio 800x600 or Sony Mavica they were almost all mirror less. Based on myself, for top quality images mirror less is doomed. Fortunately I realize I'm one guy and don't try and project my opinions onto the rest of the population. And to be honest, I don't care if the rest of the population are all using mirrorless and Pentax is the only one left using those archaic OVFs, I'll still be with them. By this time everyone who wants an EVF has one, and it's a long way from "everyone". Canon Sony Fuji and Nikon ditching their mirrors will just mean I cross them off my list of things to be aware of when I make my next purchase. IN fact I wish those guys would all go mirrorless right now and vacate their traditional DSLRs that would be really good for Pentax. Pentax would pick up a lot of disgruntled users.

Over time I've been through a lot of fads with a lot of cameras. I'm smarter than to try and predict which one might take over the world of photography. 99% of those making such predictions are wrong. And the fact that most of them considered themselves to be spokesmen for the "new age" in no way improved their understanding of what the future might be.

Oh by the way, my reference about shooting wildlife and birds was in reference to taking one image, the best one. Wildlife and especially small birds often don't afford you the opportunity to do that. Things happen so quickly if you aren't shooting a burst you are going to miss out. If you were the photographic genius you make yourself out to be, you would have known that.

Way to often people who try and put a beat down on me find it going the other way. Especially those who think because they shoot mirrorless they are god's gift to photography and all the folks who don't are dinosaurs.

Pentax execs said, "we are looking into mirrorless but it isn't there yet." I approve of that message.

You might want to adjust your attitude. Pentax and Ricoh makes many mirrorless cameras, but Ricoh has decreed that Ricoh will do mirrorless, Pentax will do DSLRs. Another thing you would have known when you started your anti-mirror rant and speculation that should Pentax getting into it, if you were half as smart as you pretend to be.

To me the biggest disadvantage to mirrorless is frame rate and lag in low light. I understand a .5s lag in my shutter speed, not in my view finder. When mirrorless solves that they'll be on the road. Some folks still won't like them, but at least they'll be on the road. Until then, they're driving on the shoulder.

[photoptimist]

It's easy to mistake growth for inevitability and conclude that 100% of cars will be SUVs, 100% of food will be hamburgers, and 100% of cameras will be mirrorless. (Actually if we over-believe the camera growth trends, then mirrorless ILC is also dead-end that will be replaced by smartphones.)

The idea that one camera architecture will take over assumes one-size fits all. As normhead and many others on this thread have noted there are artistic and aesthetic advantages of OVFs. As long as X% of the population gets a headache/eyestrain/nausea from an EVF, they'll be walking out of camera stores with OVF cameras. It doesn't matter how much EVF lovers love EVFs because that has no effect on the purchase decisions of those who prefer OVFs.

EVF vs. OVF is really like the silly format wars. Whatever the recent growth trends for M4/3, APS-C, FF, and MF, all four formats (or systems in all four formats) will persist because no camera format or architecture is the perfect camera for every user.

Extrapolation is dangerous:

[Rondec]

No doubt, it comes down to personal preference. There is a 7-14/ 2.8 in M4/3 mount. It is not all that big. M4/3 is not the end all be all camera. It is just what I choose to shoot with as I prize size and compactness over some DoF or DR loss. Advantages of the system in terms of what it can do is far more important to me. I also shoot with a Pentax MX, one of the smallest 35mm cameras made. I do, however, believe that mirrorless is going to be where everyone goes.

The 7-14 f2.8 is a 14 to 28 f5.6 equivalent. As such, it is bound to be smaller, but it won't function the same as, say, the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 on a D810. You may not notice the difference in some situations, but if you are doing things like astro photography, a four thirds camera set up is not going to be able to keep up.

I happen to like the dynamic range I get from full frame and am willing to deal with a bigger kit. Ergonomics are nice with a K-1 and when I've used slower, variable aperture zooms, I don't find the same quality I get with the lenses that I choose to use.

As to "where everyone goes," I have no idea. Certainly the camera companies don't know. The camera market as a whole is shrinking and maybe mirrorless isn't shrinking as fast, but the question for all of these companies is how they sell cameras to people who are pretty satisfied with the ultimate small camera -- their cell phone. I am guessing that the balance will swing from where SLRs are the predominant camera from to where mirrorless ILCs are a higher percentage, but I doubt that either form factor will truly "win" for many years to come.

[savoche]

As for birding and wildlife, what is the argument there? Requiring more batteries? Oh dear me! That 1/10 of a pound is going to be the difference! Oh please.

You enjoy being provocative, don't you. The weight is irrelevant, but if I'm without access to power for 4-5 days I can get by on 3 or 4 batteries for my DSLR. With most mirrorless cameras I would need, what, 8? 10? 12? Not very practical, is it.

That is (for me) the very extreme, though. For 95% of my shooting battery capacity doesn't concern me at all.

Not that it makes much sense arguing over something that is essencially a matter of preference.

[Rondec]

I've said many times that there are very few images that could be taken with mirrorless that couldn't be taken with an SLR. The reverse is true as well.

If derelict hates using an SLR he will leave it at home and it will be useless to him. The same is true if Photoptimist gets headaches from EVFs. The best camera is the one you have with you and if you don't like your camera for whatever reason (ergonomics, image quality, size, etc) then it won't be with you when you want it.

I do find the folks who are in favor of EVFs to be a little inflammatory in their rhetoric. It is almost like a cult which doesn't allow for the possibility that other beliefs might exist and persevere. EVFs are conquering the world and those who believe otherwise will just have to deal.

[normhead]

I shot some images with my mirrorless Pentax today....

Shooting mushrooms with a K-1 , the depth of field is a constant source of frustration. Even using live view and manual focus, it's so tight it's hard to position the DOF where you want it. It's exhausting.... so time for a vacation, today I went out with the little tripod and the XG-1. It quickly key became apparent that I needed more dynamic range, but it has an HDR setting which I used extensively. Sort of the XG-1 version of pixel shift.

It's not all about just using the biggest format you can. It's always about using the appropriate format for what you are crying to achieve. The XG-1 gives you 16 MP on a back-lit sensor, lots of room for cropping and plenty of DoF.

















The worst thing about it is you feel like you are cheating.

Never used the EVF once. And I'm not joining any stinking movement.

[awscreo]

Hmm. I was able to get a 2/3 of my 32GB SD card filled from 1 battery with my Oly EM1 back in the day, that's quite a lot of shots. As with any camera manufacturer, amount of shots you can get from it varies but is usually a larger number than stated in specs. I had small spare batteries with me, they don't take more space than two matchboxes really. EM1 can do up to 10fps I believe, and mft has long lenses and long zooms available now. Having tried multiple systems (and being with a ff system now) I can honestly say for majority of enthusiast level of photography modern mft mirrorless cams are great. I do see cleaner and more detailed images with K-1, and processing might be a tad easier due to higher DR, but I think I was shooting more before because I took my camera everywhere with me, I could fit camera, small gorillapod, batteries and 3-4 primes into a small sling-style backpack, and smaller sensor didn't bother me that much.


Rockefeller Plaza by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Patong beach sunset by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Saint_Vitus_12132015-10 by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Cathedral of Christ the Savior by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Botanical garden by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Trails by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

[Fcsnt54]

Hmm. I was able to get a 2/3 of my 32GB SD card filled from 1 battery with my Oly EM1 back in the day, that's quite a lot of shots. As with any camera manufacturer, amount of shots you can get from it varies but is usually a larger number than stated in specs. I had small spare batteries with me, they don't take more space than two matchboxes really. EM1 can do up to 10fps I believe, and mft has long lenses and long zooms available now. Having tried multiple systems (and being with a ff system now) I can honestly say for majority of enthusiast level of photography modern mft mirrorless cams are great. I do see cleaner and more detailed images with K-1, and processing might be a tad easier due to higher DR, but I think I was shooting more before because I took my camera everywhere with me, I could fit camera, small gorillapod, batteries and 3-4 primes into a small sling-style backpack, and smaller sensor didn't bother me that much.


Rockefeller Plaza by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Patong beach sunset by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Saint_Vitus_12132015-10 by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Cathedral of Christ the Savior by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Botanical garden by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Trails by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Those were with the 1st model? Pictures look great