[derelict]

MFT the advantage is negligible and in that case it comes at the cost of completely losing DOF control.

What? You mean I, as a M4/3 user, have no ability to adjust aperture? Thats odd, considering I have a dial I turn that does just that...

[Rondec]

What? You mean I, as a M4/3 user, have no ability to adjust aperture? Thats odd, considering I have a dial I turn that does just that...

If you want really narrow depth of field, particularly with wide angle lenses, you might find micro four thirds limiting. You can always stop down a lens, but you can't open it up beyond a certain point. Obviously to say that you lose total control over depth of field is incorrect.

[talgarik]

What? You mean I, as a M4/3 user, have no ability to adjust aperture? Thats odd, considering I have a dial I turn that does just that...

Is it supposed to be a joke? I was only stating the obvious: the f number in a MFT system will give you the same results than with any other system in terms of exposure, but in terms of DOF even if you buy an expensive Leica 25mm 1.4 in DOF terms you get a 2.8 performance, that's not an opinion, that's a fact. For some people it can be fine, but when you are into a thread sharing information, it has to be mentioned. Of course then you can play with the distance between main subject and foreground to obtain a kind of bokeh effect, but the technical limitation remains.

[derelict]

Is it supposed to be a joke? I was only stating the obvious: the f number in a MFT system will give you the same results than with any other system in terms of exposure, but in terms of DOF even if you buy an expensive Leica 25mm 1.4 in DOF terms you get a 2.8 performance, that's not an opinion, that's a fact. For some people it can be fine, but when you are into a thread sharing information, it has to be mentioned. Of course then you can play with the distance between main subject and foreground to obtain a kind of bokeh effect, but the technical limitation remains.

Is that supposed to be a joke? Because what you stated is quite simply factually incorrect. You do NOT lose TOTAL control of DoF. That could only happen if you had access to only on aperture, like an old Brownie or something like that. In M4/3, you in fact, CAN control your DoF. It might not be as shallow due to physics and the sensor size but it is controllable.

I am a M4/3 shooter and do not find myself wishing I was still in the Pentax APS-C world. Yeah, I lose a little bit of dynamic range and apparently (but not really) DoF but the size, weight, and interface advantages make it a better system for me.


This Is wide open on the Olympus 45/ 1.8. I find it acceptable.


And here is a shot at 4.5 on the same lens. They totally look the same, dont they






If the KP had the abilities that Olympus offers in its mirrorless system, I would have bought it. In fact, I ordered one from B&H and returned it as it was not at all what I was hoping it would be. A mirrorless system offers flexibility that a DSLR cannot. And I like that.

[Rondec]

Is that supposed to be a joke? Because what you stated is quite simply factually incorrect. You do NOT lose TOTAL control of DoF. That could only happen if you had access to only on aperture, like an old Brownie or something like that. In M4/3, you in fact, CAN control your DoF. It might not be as shallow due to physics and the sensor size but it is controllable.

I am a M4/3 shooter and do not find myself wishing I was still in the Pentax APS-C world. Yeah, I lose a little bit of dynamic range and apparently (but not really) DoF but the size, weight, and interface advantages make it a better system for me.


This Is wide open on the Olympus 45/ 1.8. I find it acceptable.


And here is a shot at 4.5 on the same lens. They totally look the same, dont they






If the KP had the abilities that Olympus offers in its mirrorless system, I would have bought it. In fact, I ordered one from B&H and returned it as it was not at all what I was hoping it would be. A mirrorless system offers flexibility that a DSLR cannot. And I like that.

Macro shots always have narrow depth of field due to the distance to subject. The question is how easy is it to blur the background when shooting with a 50mm equivalent lens on a given format.

This is a shot on the K-1 with the DA *55 and it is the sort of shot you would have a time making even on APS-C. You could back up and use a longer lens (if you have space), but it wouldn't be the same.



This may be unimportant to a given photographer, but it is valid.

[derelict]

Macro shots always have narrow depth of field due to the distance to subject. The question is how easy is it to blur the background when shooting with a 50mm equivalent lens on a given format.

This is a shot on the K-1 with the DA *55 and it is the sort of shot you would have a time making even on APS-C. You could back up and use a longer lens (if you have space), but it wouldn't be the same.

This may be unimportant to a given photographer, but it is valid.

The shots I posted are equivalent to a 90mm on FF so I was not 'macro', or as close as you might think. Either way, you cannot escape physics. I can create photos using my 135 film gear that I cannot replicate with my M4/3 and my Bronica creates things that nothing else I own can. Again, you cannot escape physics. Your shot could be replicated with a longer lens but then you get into compression issues where the background objects begin to look larger and more obvious than the subject itself. Like all things, you choose what works best for you. For me, M4/3 mirrorless with a folding screen, touch to focus and shoot, the ability to see exactly what the photo will be in the EVF and/ or screen, and the ability to composite or adjust curves in real time before the shot is taken...all are reasons why I am in that system.


I took umbrance with the erroneous assumption that because it is a smaller sensor, all control is lost. It is different, but not lost. As a 120 shooter, I could argue that the smaller 135 format is limited but I would never argue that it is completely lost.

[talgarik]

You do NOT lose TOTAL control of DoF. That could only happen if you had access to only on aperture, like an old Brownie or something like that. In M4/3, you in fact, CAN control your DoF. It might not be as shallow due to physics and the sensor size but it is controllable.

We are saying the same thing except for the meaning we give to "DOF control" - APS-C systems are already a limitation in that regard (compared to FF) MFT makes it worse.
I am not trying to discredit the MFT system, I have owned an Olympus EM5II, beautiful camera, lot of great features, but just take a Pentax 50mm 1.4 (mount it on a FF and APS-C camera) and a Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4 (mount it on whatever MFT camera you want): your ability to control depth of field will decrease or not? of course it will decrease and that was my point; completely losing depth of field control can look like an exaggeration but that is my opinion based on my experience.

[Rondec]

The shots I posted are equivalent to a 90mm on FF so I was not 'macro', or as close as you might think. Either way, you cannot escape physics. I can create photos using my 135 film gear that I cannot replicate with my M4/3 and my Bronica creates things that nothing else I own can. Again, you cannot escape physics. Your shot could be replicated with a longer lens but then you get into compression issues where the background objects begin to look larger and more obvious than the subject itself. Like all things, you choose what works best for you. For me, M4/3 mirrorless with a folding screen, touch to focus and shoot, the ability to see exactly what the photo will be in the EVF and/ or screen, and the ability to composite or adjust curves in real time before the shot is taken...all are reasons why I am in that system.


I took umbrance with the erroneous assumption that because it is a smaller sensor, all control is lost. It is different, but not lost. As a 120 shooter, I could argue that the smaller 135 format is limited but I would never argue that it is completely lost.

That is fine. I hope I don't come across as an apologist for a certain format size. Taking shallow depth of field photography isn't particularly important for me, but if it is for a photographer, then using a larger sensor or film size helps in that regard.

[derelict]

That is fine. I hope I don't come across as an apologist for a certain format size. Taking shallow depth of field photography isn't particularly important for me, but if it is for a photographer, then using a larger sensor or film size helps in that regard.

Most paid photographers will be using Canikon, or increasingly Sony, FF sensor cameras. You can get absolutely stunning shots out of anything these days but most paid pro work will by FF work.

[normhead]

I have a Pentax XG-1 , not a terribly serious attempt at mirrorless but the one thing I like most is the pre-shutter release histogram looking through the EVF.

[awscreo]

I used mft gear for 3 years, and was more than happy with it. One advantage not many mention - sweet spot for lenses comes earlier, most at 2.8-4, meaning that you don't have to stop all the way to f8 to get the best results, and f4 is still pretty bright so you don't need to bump iso or reduce shutter speed. Some of the lenses are almost too sharp (I had Samyang 12mm f2, a tiny manual 24mm equivalent, at f4 it was almost unpleasantly sharp all the way across the frame). Features introduced with firmware gave my EM1 new life. I ended up leaving the system for Pentax because K-1 was just too good for the money, but I do sometimes fondly remember my small and light kit that I took everywhere with me on travels. IQ wise it was very good. I certainly see IQ improvement with the K-1, but my EM1 files were good overall, DR wasn't an issue, noise up to iso 800 was fine, and with an amazing IBIS system I could get away with much lower shutter speeds than with a dslr, even K-1.

[surfar]

Speed boosters can come in handy for ML,an additional stop from most.

[Pål Jensen]

We are saying the same thing except for the meaning we give to "DOF control" - APS-C systems are already a limitation in that regard (compared to FF) MFT makes it worse..

You get less DOF control with larger formats (within reason). Thats why large format cameras have tilt and shift control in order to be able to control DOF at all. What you gain in one end you loose in the other. As a thought experiment lets consider two imaginary formats where one use a 600mm lens (bigger format) to get the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on the other format (smaller). Which format have most control over DOF? Aperture range hardly matters....
Most images have everything in focus and most of the rest have a lot in focus. APS isn't limited at all in terms of DOF control. Successful images shot at 1.4 on FF is rare as hens teeth and constitute approximately 0.0000000001% of all worthwhile images that are shot of subjects that are three dimentional (ie where the whole subject is not at the same focus plane). If shoot at infinity or a flat subject then DOF doesn't matter; only speed does....
Another issue is that one stop in DOF difference rarely make any significant difference in the finished image. If in doubt use the DOF preview and see the difference!

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.

[surfar]

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.

Yes, those Q batteries need an extra truck to carry them.

[Fcsnt54]

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.

Yes you turn on the camera and the battery is instantly drained