[Jonathan Mac]

As a user of both DSLR (Pentax) and mirrorless (Fujifilm) I have to say that what I like most about Pentax is their lenses, though it's a double-edged sword. They make lenses that I love and wouldn't want to be without, such as the DA Limiteds, plus there are (or at least were) third party stuff that I like, such as a 17-50mm f/2.8*. There are also gaping holes in their line-up, such as the DA* lenses, which I regard as holes in the line-up because they're either optically poor, have dodgy AF or both. Or there's the elephant in the room of a good 35mm f/1.4 for APS-C. With Fujifilm I like the lenses too as they're much more practical and have a very similar aesthetic (small, light, well-built, excellent optics) to the DA Limiteds.

With cameras I like my K-3, it's capable of a lot but the biggest problem is the AF, it's just not accurate enough. Using the K-3 and my X-T20 (or even the X-M1 to use an example of similar age to the K-3) I get more hits with the Fujifilm than with the Pentax. Now some of that is due to the DSLR/mirrorless nature of each camera and some is not. AF is inherently less accurate in an SLR because it's a proxy, using something that in theory should provide accurate AF if all else is OK, while for mirrorless the focus is determined on the image sensor itself. On the other hand, other SLR makers have made SLR AF work apparently much better than Pentax have.

Many of the things I like or dislike about each system have little to do with the nature of the camera and more with the design philosophy of the company and how they see a camera system should be. If Pentax were to make a mirrorless system with the same principles as their DSLRs and twin lens philosophies of the DA Limited and DA*, sans dodgy optics and AF, ie how the DA* lenses should be, then I'm sure I'd love it. Likewise, if Fujifilm made an SLR system with their philosophy I think there's a good chance I'd like that too.

I'm held to Pentax more by their lenses than by their cameras, though obviously for AF I need a Pentax camera. Having said that, an adapter that allows AF of Pentax lenses on Sony A7/A9 cameras is apparently due out very soon. From what I know of Sony, I'd probably hate their cameras, but if someone made the same for Fujifilm X cameras then I'd no longer be tied to Pentax for a camera and I could get most of what I want in a single hybrid system.

Anyway, there is nothing that's all it's cracked up to be, and many things are down to personal preference or individual needs.

* Yes, Pentax make their own but but by most accounts it's rubbish

[BigMackCam]

As a user of both DSLR (Pentax) and mirrorless (Fujifilm) I have to say ...
...
... there is nothing that's all it's cracked up to be, and many things are down to personal preference or individual needs.

Whilst I don't agree on every one of your points, Jonathan, yours is a very thoughtful and constructive post that proves we can express different views and opinions, even criticisms of our chosen brand, without resorting to inflammatory and emotional diatribe... I do enjoy discussions like this

[bdery]

From what I know of Sony, I'd probably hate their cameras

It's much better than I would have thought. I'm getting around most of the controls quite easily, that's saying something!

[AgentL]

That article is hardly "new news!"

[leekil]

One of the YouTube street guys says he knows people who shoot 100% on iphones, they are also used for pro videos. What they can do is astonishing you can still work on composition with a phone and it is still photography. We have photographic society members who enter them in competitions all that in something smaller than a bar of chocolate!

Yes, and no; the phones do a lot to make the photos look good, but in many cases this is at the expense of loss of detail on zooming in, or they brighten up the image when that is not what I want.

---------- Post added 12-03-20 at 12:50 PM ----------

Sounds to me as if a lot of the claimed advantages/disadvantages are specific (real or imagined) to particular cameras and not in principle anything to do with whether they are mirrorless or not.

I would think that lighter cameras are inherent to mirrorless compared to DSLR, since the mirror assembly is a whole set of mechanical parts you don't have to include. And this can affect the size as well, if the mirrorless camera is not relying on mirrored-camera lenses.

[Cerebum]

Yes, and no; the phones do a lot to make the photos look good, but in many cases this is at the expense of loss of detail on zooming in, or they brighten up the image when that is not what I want.

.

Joel Mayerowitz says that "phones killed the sexiness of the street" and I couldn't agree more. The quote you posted was part of a longer conversation and I was merely conceding a point. I am in complete agreement with you. Phones do a great job but there will always be things for which you need a camera.

[Breakfastographer]

Joel Mayerowitz says that "phones killed the sexiness of the street" and I couldn't agree more. The quote you posted was part of a longer conversation and I was merely conceding a point. I am in complete agreement with you. Phones do a great job but there will always be things for which you need a camera.

Maybe there's context I'm missing, but if I just heard that phrase, I'd think he was referring to everyone staring into their phones and how that's made photographs very boring. A photograph of a street where everybody is staring into their phone. Another one, everybody doing same. It gets boring fairly quickly. Like I said, perhaps that's not what he was trying to say, but it makes sense to me that way nonetheless.

---------- Post added 12-03-20 at 02:04 PM ----------

As a user of both DSLR (Pentax) and mirrorless (Fujifilm) I have to say that what I like most about Pentax is their lenses, though it's a double-edged sword. They make lenses that I love and wouldn't want to be without, such as the DA Limiteds, plus there are (or at least were) third party stuff that I like, such as a 17-50mm f/2.8*. There are also gaping holes in their line-up, such as the DA* lenses, which I regard as holes in the line-up because they're either optically poor, have dodgy AF or both. Or there's the elephant in the room of a good 35mm f/1.4 for APS-C. With Fujifilm I like the lenses too as they're much more practical and have a very similar aesthetic (small, light, well-built, excellent optics) to the DA Limiteds.

With cameras I like my K-3, it's capable of a lot but the biggest problem is the AF, it's just not accurate enough. Using the K-3 and my X-T20 (or even the X-M1 to use an example of similar age to the K-3) I get more hits with the Fujifilm than with the Pentax. Now some of that is due to the DSLR/mirrorless nature of each camera and some is not. AF is inherently less accurate in an SLR because it's a proxy, using something that in theory should provide accurate AF if all else is OK, while for mirrorless the focus is determined on the image sensor itself.

You may want to read this:
Why I keep writing ’bout holes in the sensor – breakfastographer

I'll also point out that live view is available on every modern DSLR and does AF on the sensor* - though not necessarily PDAF.

* (well, in the sensor plane, nothing is actually done "on the sensor" other than sensing - to perform AF, you still need other electronics in the middle, whether on mirrorless or DSLR!)

---

Last edited by Breakfastographer; 12-03-2020 at 02:05 PM.

[Cerebum]

Maybe there's context I'm missing, but if I just heard that phrase, I'd think he was referring to everyone staring into their phones and how that's made photographs very boring. A photograph of a street where everybody is staring into their phone. Another one, everybody doing same. It gets boring fairly quickly. Like I said, perhaps that's not what he was trying to say, but it makes sense to me that way nonetheless.[

I took it to mean people using cameras to record street is sexier whereas phone photography has taken away the magic and mystique, but now you come to mention it, yours fits better

I just read the article, you were right damn, I thought I had found a really good anti-phone quote! Back to the drawing board

[pepperberry farm]

as predicted, the follow-up "article"

Mirrorless Not All It's Cracked up To Be? What a Crack-Up! | Fstoppers

[Lord Lucan]

as predicted, the follow-up "article"

From the article (my bold) :-

In summation, the burst rate of the EOS R5 puts that of its 5D Mark IV DSLR counterpart to shame, as does the AF capabilities and frame coverage. For many photographers, these two points alone are, arguably, the two most important features in a camera

Most important features? Not inherent image quality then? For myself, I am completely uninterested in burst rate and not very interested in AF frame coverage. How many people actually need a 20fps burst rate, and for what? I did once, at work, to record behaviour of a train wheel over pointwork (we hired a high speed camera) - oh, I suppose everyone needs to do that all the time

A lot of the comparison items in that article are not really anything to do with their being mirrorless or not. They are just general camera technical advances.

[BigMackCam]

as predicted, the follow-up "article"

Mirrorless Not All It's Cracked up To Be? What a Crack-Up! | Fstoppers

A pretty shameless way to increase site traffic... publishing a contentious and opinionated article that appeals strongly to one side of an argument, quickly followed by a similarly contentious and opinionated article that appeals to the other. Hands up who didn't see that one coming?

I'll just quote what I said earlier in this thread, because it's equally relevant to this new article...

The author and (especially) his respondents are confusing their own opinions and preferences for statements of fact, when a large dose of subjectivity means the facts are different for each of us. We don't need folks telling us mirrorless is better, just as we don't need to tell them we think DSLRs are better (such discussions, I'm afraid, usually read as if they're motivated by insecurity or confirmation bias, even if the intent is sincere). All we need do is find out which we prefer and shoot with that.

[hjoseph7]

It took a while, but Digital finally surpassed the quality of Film starting with the 35mm format. Now we have Medium Format Digital cameras and even Large Format Digital backs for those fortunate enough to afford them. Personally, I would say that in 9 out of 10 cases, I can tell which picture was taken with a Digital camera and which was taken with a Film camera. Not to say one medium is better than the other, however I would have to say that most prefer the grain-less images that we get from Digital cameras or they would not be that popular. Of course there are exceptions. Now when it comes to Mirror Less cameras, I can't tell the difference between and image take with one and an image taken with a DSLR.

Sure I would not mind owning a Mirror Less camera if somebody gave me one, but the switch is not as urgent as when Not switching to Digital could hurt you professionally.The obvious reason is there is no difference in picture quality. Now somebody that owns a Mirror Less camera might tell you about all the good points such as auto focus points that fill the frame. EVF (electronic view finders) with all types of information, small size etc. However all that stuff does not make you a better photographer, or does it create better images.

[ecostigny]

It took a while, but Digital finally surpassed the quality of Film starting with the 35mm format. Now we have Medium Format Digital cameras and even Large Format Digital backs for those fortunate enough to afford them. Personally, I would say that in 9 out of 10 cases, I can tell which picture was taken with a Digital camera and which was taken with a Film camera. Not to say one medium is better than the other, however I would have to say that most prefer the grain-less images that we get from Digital cameras or they would not be that popular. Of course there are exceptions. Now when it comes to Mirror Less cameras, I can't tell the difference between and image take with one and an image taken with a DSLR.

Sure I would not mind owning a Mirror Less camera if somebody gave me one, but the switch is not as urgent as when Not switching to Digital could hurt you professionally.The obvious reason is there is no difference in picture quality. Now somebody that owns a Mirror Less camera might tell you about all the good points such as auto focus points that fill the frame. EVF (electronic view finders) with all types of information, small size etc. However all that stuff does not make you a better photographer, or does it create better images.

I do like the potential of the autofocus that has been implemented in the current generation of mirrorless cameras. My K-5 sometimes requires additional oversight to ensure that its autofocus doesn't lock onto the most distant object in the picture (This usually occurs when my subjects are aligned with the 1/3 and 2/3 points of the width of the screen with nothing in between). The reports I've read suggest that certain mirrorless systems handle this situation with aplomb. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; I would have to see this for myself to be convinced that switching to mirrorless would guarantee better hit rates.

[Lord Lucan]

I believe that mirrorless cameras will evolve completely away from their current outline. There is no reason for them to be as thick in the body as they are now (yes I know about heating but tech advances will reduce that problem). I predict that they will become like biggish smartphones with a FF or APS-C lens mount on the front. Of course, as time goes on that will require yet more new glassware for the smaller flange distance, but the marketing people won't mind that at all.

At present they are merely DSLRs with the mirror and pentaprism taken away, like early cars looked like horse-drawn carriages without the horse. They were even called "horseless carriages" for a while, which the "mirrorless cameras" term echoes.

[jersey]

I suppose glass lenses will start to be slowly replaced with liquid ones allowing for very compact ones. Otherwise making small bodies wont work. Attach FF 50-80mm lens to smartphone and look how ergonomic it will be. Liquid lenses will allow to overcome this. But yeah, mirrorless is future, as much as SLR replaced rangefinders and SLR will joinf rangefinders in a "nostalgic" niche for people who, for some reason, want such camera. I do not have anything against actaully, if tech (EVF in first place) will advance enough to give proper experience then why not? Camera is still just a camera, a tool to make photos.