[Ontarian50]

Benefit of mirrorless exists mostly for camera makers: MILC camera are easy to make, no complex mirror assembly, no software loop switching between mirror down state (reading AF+AE sensors), no control mirror actuation, no sync between mirror up and mirror down states for AF tracking. MILC cameras are simple, have one domain only software: reading out the CMOS sensor => Want to AF: read the CMOS sensor; Want do meter for exposure time: read the CMOS sensor; Want to build an histogram: read the CMOS sensor. Want to record video: read the CMOS sensor. So, the mirrorless benefit is like when DSLR makers removed optical anti-alias filters on sensors, customers perceived more sharpness in their images, and the image sensor assembly was cheaper for the camera makers. DSLR like the K1 are complex, there is even an aperture lever and an internal AF motor inside the camera, mirrorless camera don't have any of this.

Yes, mirrorless will take over because they will be cheaper to make.

If the camera companies can sell us a $1,000 camera, and leave out the prism, focusing screen, mirror, secondary mirror, AF module, save some money and still charge us $1,000 then that's the future.


While good EVF's are a bit of a challenge today, the cost will come down drastically, and will be inevitably cheaper than all the SLR bits they can leave out (and have to manufacture with precise alignment).

It doesn't matter how much we complain about losing our real-time optical finders, mirrorless will be presented as "the way to go" because of the cost savings in manufacture.

[6BQ5]

Wow, lots of replies here! Must be a hot topic.

Mirrorless cameras offer a live view of the image before it is actually taken. Characteristics like white balance, in-camera saturation and styles for JPG shooters, etc are all presented to you live. You can add overlay additional information like focus peaking and histograms in the view. It is also possible to select an area of the image to zoom into to really nail that focus. This can be especially useful when shooting with faster manual lenses that do not send any information to the camera body.

Continuing with focusing capabilities, since you are focusing according to information from the sensor (vs. a split off light signal going under the mirror) you will no longer have front/back focusing issues. You can also have an extremely large number of focus points which can work together in a selected area to increase focus speed/triggering.

Without a mirror needing to go up and down you can have very fast burst rates. This can be useful in sports were you may be presented with unpredictable and fast action.

I understand there can be some advantages to lens design as well, especially wider angle lenses.

My first mirrorless experience was with a first gen Olympus M10. I still have that little camera. It focuses by contrast detection which is pretty slow and practically useless for action bursts. Still subjects are perfect for it. I never, ever, ever missed focus on it. Seriously. If I choose to focus on the closest eye then that eye will be razor sharp. Don't trust the focus? Zoom in on it. Seeing the information in the viewfinder was a huge revelation to me.

My second serious experience with mirrorless is with my Fuji X-T3. It's like my Olympus but on serious performance enhancing drugs. The camera has almost no problem on fast approaching subjects coming at me between 10 and 30 feet. I set the focus point where I want it and track the person keeping their face in that square. If I can't pan accurately then of course I miss focus and get a soft image. I can kind of see when that happens as I'm doing it. A soft image flashes in the EVF and I can make a quick correction. The X-T3 quickly locks on and continues capturing.

Can a mirror'ed camera do the same? Not everything but it can come pretty close. A big, bright, beautiful optical viewfinder with a simple B&W histogram overlay in the bottom right hand side would be awesome! More focus points can probably be. How many does the K-1 have? 27, 29 or something like that? I thought some of the advanced Canon and Nikon bodies offered something in the 50's?

EVFs can of falter in low light. The same grain and noise we see in high ISO images is often times in the EVF when you crank up to 6400 and beyond. An optical viewfinder may be dimmer but it will certainly be cleaner. EVFs also seem smaller to me ... but then again, a lot of viewfinders of any kind will feel small compared to the K-1. The K-1 viewfinder is huge! Ok ... maybe the OVF in my ME Super or MX is bigger.

I don't think one VF is better than the other. Use the one you like and understand what you are getting vs. what you are letting go. I use both happily and appreciate them for what they are.

[normhead]

Yes, mirrorless will take over because they will be cheaper to make.

In most things people will pay more for desired options.

[Rondec]

[at the risk of stirring the pot, I add my 2c, if you don't agree, its ok, we all have different opinions. Let the pot remain no further stirred]

The only big plus a mirrorless camera offers (to me) is the mounting flange is so close to the sensor, it makes a camera a universal lens camera. The Sony (I forget the model) that came out will take all makes and models of lens. That's cool. Imagine having one camera that will work with all lenses. Face and eye detect on AF also should be a plus. I don't use my AF much, so I can't see much gain to me personally for that. I can see how others need it.

The big minus to me is the battery useage. They take more power to use. I don't want to keep several batteries charged and ready or add a big battery pack if I don't have to. I'm fine with my optical viewfinder and I'm not a bleeding edge gotta have what's new type person anyway. I will let the others debate and discuss and then buy one that's like 1-3 years old and use that. Saving all kinds of money waiting. (shooting with 40 year old glass, winning ^ 2)

I agree with the first post. Its mostly all an advantage for the manufacturer, they save lots on making them. Hardly seems a reason for a consumer to jump at it. *shrug*

The interesting thing is that with more and more short registration cameras coming out and lenses for them, this no longer is true. I don't know, for instance, that you can mount a Z mount lens or an RP mount lens on a Sony A7x camera. Seems as though you can adapt Sony lenses to Z mount, but not the reverse? Once again, I don't think Fuji lenses are adaptable to Sony cameras.

Certainly it seems as though the best thing to do is to research the glass that you are interested in in the long run and purchase a camera body that will mount that glass.

Most brands have the basics down, but certainly if you need a tilt shift, 600 mm f4 lens, or an f2 zoom, that might steer you in one direction or another. The idea of buying cameras purely to adapt lenses doesn't make sense to me in the long run, it's more of a short term transition.

[Dan Rentea]

In most things people will pay more for desired options.

Sadly, I see more people willing to pay more on expensive cameras like D850, 5DsR, K1... and then they use them with cheap lenses instead of investing in good lenses first and focus on cameras after they buy the lenses.

[normhead]

The interesting thing is that with more and more short registration cameras coming out and lenses for them, this no longer is true. I don't know, for instance, that you can mount a Z mount lens or an RP mount lens on a Sony A7x camera. Seems as though you can adapt Sony lenses to Z mount, but not the reverse? Once again, I don't think Fuji lenses are adaptable to Sony cameras.

Certainly it seems as though the best thing to do is to research the glass that you are interested in in the long run and purchase a camera body that will mount that glass.

Most brands have the basics down, but certainly if you need a tilt shift, 600 mm f4 lens, or an f2 zoom, that might steer you in one direction or another. The idea of buying cameras purely to adapt lenses doesn't make sense to me in the long run, it's more of a short term transition.

Find the lens you love and buy the camera it goes on " is still true in my mind. If wanted steller 24mm, after poking around the web yesterday in this thread
Pentax FA*24/2 or A 20/2.8 ? - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

I'd look at Sony first. But, I can't really see 24mm being big part of my life.
That being said, with my DA*55 1.4 being my favourite prime at the moment and the DFA* 50 1.4 being even better, I'm not seeing a lens from Sony that even matches the 55 at a quick glance.

[BigMackCam]

The idea of buying cameras purely to adapt lenses doesn't make sense to me in the long run, it's more of a short term transition.

It makes sense if you're primarily looking for a body on which to mount and shoot the widest possible range of vintage manual glass. That's the main reason I bought my A7 MkII, although the fact I could add the LA-EA4 SLT A-mount adapter and use all my A-mount glass on it sealed the deal. Still, it was vintage lens use that was the big draw for me... and I'm far from alone. A lot of folks are shooting mostly or entirely manual glass in a variety of mounts on their Sony E-mount mirrorless cameras. I doubt it's a big chunk of the market, but I wouldn't say it's insignificant either...

[Rondec]

It makes sense if you're primarily looking for a body on which to mount and shoot the widest possible range of vintage manual glass. That's the main reason I bought my A7 MkII, although the fact I could add the LA-EA4 SLT A-mount adapter and use all my A-mount glass on it sealed the deal. Still, it was vintage lens use that was the big draw for me... and I'm far from alone. A lot of folks are shooting mostly or entirely manual glass in a variety of mounts on their Sony E-mount mirrorless cameras. I doubt it's a big chunk of the market, but I wouldn't say it's insignificant either...

I just don't think that that's a big driver of camera sales.

The majority of people out there (including professionals) want lenses that auto focus well, have auto metering and aperture that is controllable from the camera body. The fact that you can mount FD mount and Leica lenses on a Sony FE mount is interesting, but I can't honestly say that it would move the needle at all for me.

Personally, I want a set of f2.8 zooms and a few fast primes that will auto focus without needing an adapter. As I said before, the adapter idea is a transition one, mainly to be used for situations where a particular lens isn't available in the mount you have chosen or you can't afford that lens.

[normhead]

Sadly, I see more people willing to pay more on expensive cameras like D850, 5DsR, K1... and then they use them with cheap lenses instead of investing in good lenses first and focus on cameras after they buy the lenses.

Hence the old line about Pentax users. "A Pentax user is guy who will buy a $1,500 body to use with a $50 lens." But, I''ve seen it with all brands.

The day I took this picture with my Tamron 2.8 and K-3 shooting wide open (in doors at Bird Kingdom in Niagara Falls), there was woman there with brand new 5DMKiii and what looked like a kit lens, wondering why I could get a decent exposure and she couldn't.

[clackers]

To be fair, 5D Mark IV is better than EOS R only for wildlife

Sorry, Dan, it's disappointing.

As Thomas Heaton, an 18 year Canon owner points out, very disappointing:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[Dan Rentea]

Hence the old line about Pentax users. "A Pentax user is guy who will buy a $1,500 body to use with a $50 lens." But, I''ve seen it with all brands.

It's common on every brand. I don't have a problem with the guys who are shooting with cheap or/and with old lenses as long as they don't complain over and over again about their cameras thinking that their camera is to blame for the lack of sharp images or lack of fast Af.

The day I took this picture with my Tamron 2.8 and K-3 shooting wide open (in doors at Bird Kingdom in Niagara Falls), there was woman there with brand new 5DMKiii and what looked like a kit lens, wondering why I could get a decent exposure and she couldn't.

I have cheap prime lenses that I shoot with often because they are small and light. But when I have a paid job I use L prime lenses because those lenses make my life a lot easier even if they are big and heavy.

Nice image. As I see, you also shoot portraits at f2.8 (if I'm not mistaken, that bird image was taken at f2.8) when you want and when you think you have the right reasons to use wide apertures. So I'm not alone thinking that shooting wide open has advantages as long as you know what you're doing.

Take a look at this image for example. Shooting at f5.6 or f8 would have distracted the viewer from the girl and the image was used by a local store to promote that coat on the model. Therefore, I took the image at f2 with an 85mm lens and even if the background is busy, it's not distracting and advertising text can be added on each side.



This image was taken by my wife at f1.8 with an 85mm lens. It's me in the image at Madrid tennis tournament. I could have used f5.6 to shoot this image because my wife doesn't know how to use a camera and the DOF is tiny at f1.8, but I didn't because:

- I didn't wanted that people around me to be recognizable in this image and in the same time a distraction
- I wasn't moving and because of that she didn't needed eye af; she took 3 images, all sharp

This image was used by a local marketing company and I earned around 150$ by giving them the permission to use it in some Facebook adds.



This image was taken at f2.8 with an 85mm lens. I used 3 lights with modifiers. Can this image be taken at f5.6 or f8? Sure, but I wanted to blur a little that barn and it looks good printed at 20" size.




Someone said above that I don't know how to control DOF and that I don't understand it. Here is an image that seems simple to shoot, but it's tricky. It was taken at ISO 1600, F5.6, 1/1000s, 600mm. The ones shooting at 600mm and wide open knows and can confirm that is difficult to get the entire head in focus.



I always say that is better to use more images than words when people from different countries try to have a conversation. It makes things easier to understand...

---------- Post added 09-13-19 at 10:08 PM ----------

As Thomas Heaton, an 18 year Canon owner

He may be, but he used the camera with the first firmware, a year ago. Things have changed in the meantime and the ones who spend more than a month shooting side by side may have different opinions. Not to mention that he was shooting landscapes with that camera. You don't need eye af or silent shooting for that. From his video it seems that he was dissapointed because it wasn't an upgrade from 5D Mark IV. He should have know that as long as the sensor from EOS R is the one used in 5D Mark IV. He also said that he is starting to look at other brands but in the end he seems that no other brand is better for him. For a lot of people this may seem strange given the fact that he is shooting landscapes and there are lots of cameras with better dynamic range and with more resolution and landscape featureas.

These guys ( Report: Canon EOS R's New Firmware Makes AF Comparable to Sony's ) tested the camera with the last firmware update, the one that is not yet released and they say that af is pretty good compared to Sony latest cameras. But again, I speak only for myself after I bought the EOS R and I was shooting side by side with both of them. Others have different opinions than mine. That's why I tell people to rent cameras before buying them.

[normhead]

It's common on every brand. I don't have a problem with the guys who are shooting with cheap or/and with old lenses as long as they don't complain over and over again about their cameras thinking that their camera is to blame for the lack of sharp images or lack of fast Af.



I have cheap prime lenses that I shoot with often because they are small and light. But when I have a paid job I use L prime lenses because those lenses make my life a lot easier even if they are big and heavy.

Nice image. As I see, you also shoot portraits at f2.8 (if I'm not mistaken, that bird image was taken at f2.8) when you want and when you think you have the right reasons to use wide apertures. So I'm not alone thinking that shooting wide open has advantages as long as you know what you're doing.

Take a look at this image for example. Shooting at f5.6 or f8 would have distracted the viewer from the girl and the image was used by a local store to promote that coat on the model. Therefore, I took the image at f2 with an 85mm lens and even if the background is busy, it's not distracting.




This image was taken by my wife at f1.8 with an 85mm lens. It's me in the image at Madrid tennis tournament. I could have used f5.6 to shoot this image because my wife doesn't know how to use a camera and the DOF is tiny at f1.8, but I didn't because:

- I didn't wanted that people around me to be recognizable in this image and in the same time a distraction
- I wasn't moving and because of that she didn't needed eye af; she took 3 images, all sharp

This image was used by a local marketing company and I earned around 150$ by giving them the permission to use it in some Facebook adds.



This image was taken at f2.8 with an 85mm lens. I used 3 lights with modifiers. Can this image be taken at f5.6 or f8? Sure, but I wanted to blur a little that barn and it looks good printed at 20" size.




Someone said above that I don't know how to control DOF and that I don't understand it. Here is an image that seems simple to shoot, but it's tricky. It was taken at ISO 1600, F5.6, 1/1000s, 600mm. The ones shooting at 600mm and wide open knows and can confirm that is difficult to get the entire head in focus.



I always say that is better to use more images than words when people from different countries try to have a conversation. It makes things easier to understand...

I always shoot multiple f-stops, with really narrow DoF, usually 2, 4, 5.6, 8, 11 and pick the one I like best, and it's often not the one I think it should be.. I still don't believe I ever said you don't understand depth of field. I believe I was misquoted, at least I couldn't find it in a quick glance.

Laundry day 1.4. Great for when you want to give the impression but not necessarily the particulars.

[Dan Rentea]

I still don't believe I ever said you don't understand depth of field. I believe I was misquoted, at least I couldn't find it in a quick glance.

You didn't and I wasn't referring at you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Someone else said that a few comments back... I think he was in a bad mood... Or it could be my fault and I misunderstood what he was saying. That's the problem of not being a native english speaker...

Laundry day 1.4. Great for when you want to give the impression but not necessarily the particulars.

I have some laundry also, this time taken at f4

[normhead]

You didn't and I wasn't referring at you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Someone else said that a few comments back... I think he was in a bad mood...



I have some laundry also, this time taken at f4

Consider me one upped. You definitely take better laundry shots than I do.

[Lowell Goudge]

We're being sold a (currently) unfeasible idea that is not even particularly good for the environment and it's hilarious how many people are buying into it. New technology often has a new set of drawbacks associated to the benefits like MILCs having some pros and cons compared to DSLRs.

To elaborate, in Germany (just quick numbers here) there are ~47 million passenger cars. Electric cars draw, from what I've seen, on average around 4 kW from the grid while charging, being conservative. This might not seem like a lot but we are talking about 180 GW of power for charging the full country. This is a bit less than the total installed power in the country (~200 GW). The problem is that 25% of that is solar and charging would happen overnight, so it cannot even be used. Another 25% is wind, which is also intermittent.

The logistics of transitioning to exclusively, or even mostly, electric cars are not simple at all. Feasible yes, but the underlying infrastructure must be significantly overhauled and grid-level energy storage technologies are not quite there yet to enable renewable-only power generation.

I did the same basic calculation for Canada a few years ago, and came up with a need to have an installed generation capacity of 19GW continuous, to replace the gasoline used daily in Canada. I find the numbers you have to be perhaps Over stated, the German population is 83 million compared to Canada at 35 million, so a little over 2:1 and I am quite certain that Canadians are on average driving bigger less efficient cars, and driving them further on average, than Germans, so I would like to know how you came up with 10 times the required installed capacity to charge the cars.

I made my estimate based upon the gasoline consumption published at the time of I think 110million litres per day at an average latent heat to mechanical power conversion of 25% (diesels I know can approach 40%) and assumed for electric cars a net efficiency of 80% to cover charging efficiency, power conversion losses in the vehicle drive package, and motor losses etc.

But regardless, it is a big new investment in guaranteed generation capacity, the only way i can see it happening is a rethink of nuclear. The reduction of fossil fuel electricity generation has largely been achieved by reduced demand by improvements in efficiency, specifically lighting, air conditioning, and electrical appliances. To illustrate this point, I have lived in the same house for 35 years, and use less energy now, than 35 years ago, even though we now have 2 fridges in place of one, central air vs no air conditioning, and a lot more electrical stuff plugged in all the time, like computers, wifi and network gear........ while at the same time upgrading windows and insulation (this reduces cooling loads)

But, I suspect there is not much room for further improvement, and all my efforts really have done is to help maintain the status quo as the population in Canada increased by 30%.


To the op, sorry for hijacking the thread