[MJKoski]

I can give a 5-year-old my Mont Blanc rollerball pen and she can effortlessly handle that too. It doesn't mean it's designed for kids or too small. I'm not following your reasoning or logic...

Yes of course it is likely the pen fits nicely. But no, if the Sony model fits 5-year kid's hand nicely (or almost perfectly), how is it going to fit in a hand twice the size (standard scandinavian adult hand dimensions in this case)? I would say Japanese camera industry & design dictates our way of thinking way too much. In the end, bad physical form becomes acceptable and nobody wants to stand up against the "machine".

[MarkJerling]

R5, A7R IV, S1 (Panasonic). I have to try the new Sony 9.44 milion dots EVF on A7S III...

OK, thanks. I don't know anyone with those cameras though. So, may be a while before I get to try those.

[Dan Rentea]

Dan shoots really nice images -- he did when he was shooting with SLRs and still does as he has moved more to an EOS-R camera. He shoots them because he is skilled and sets up what he is doing in a careful manner.

Thank you!

There are definitely differences in terms of use between mirrorless and SLR cameras, but in every day use, I think most of us would probably get very similar images, assuming the same quality glass, shooting with one type of camera or the other.

Here are 2 behind the scenes images from the shooting session I organized last weekend for the ones interested in shooting portraits with strobes. I had various cameras from 6 participants to deal with, from an old Canon 450D to Nikon D850 and Sony A6500. It's very hard to find differences in terms of the images we all got that day, especially due to the quality of light which was also consistent. Image quality, as I said a few comments back, it's the same between DSLRs and mirrorless with similar sensors. Of this I'm 1000% sure.





and below are some results from that lights setup (not the best by the way). I only took 5 images because I wasn't there to shoot, I was there to put the lights as needed so that participants can understand how each of them has an impact on the final image.





If I want to be honest, the difference between the images taken that day it's more visible on posing and face expression than between cameras that were used to take the images. But, as I also said, once we started to shoot without strobes at fast apertures, focus and recompose technique showed some missed focused images and manually selecting the af point closest to the eyes was a little more time consuming. Eye af helps me concentrate more on talking to the model and make her show me the expression I'm after while I don't have to concentrate also in getting the eye in focus each time she moves a little. Sure, if you have the time and you know the model, you can take as many shots you want until you get the image you want, but we (or to be more precise, I) don't have this luxury often and I try to maximize my time and my client/model time as much as I can. I don't care what's written in front of my camera or how many megapixels it has as long as it helps me to get the job done with a little less effort than my previous camera.

---------- Post added 01-20-21 at 12:30 PM ----------

You do not get to see what you really see with your eyes.

In lots of situations I see better than with my own eyes or through OVF, dim light being an example.

Again, when have you seen a computer screen you would want to put over a window opening you have blocked with bricks and then called that an improvement?

Today?!

You Tube

You Tube

Since Sony's own implementation of EVF hardware often for some weird reason seems to include a massive drop of resolution when actually using it to focus or for video (funny) and the A7s3 reportedly is just another example, it seems in action the EVF shows even less details than the S1/R5 with less dots on the spec sheet.

I can't comment on A7S III because I haven't used the camera and I don't read internet reviews anymore.

[normhead]

That reminds me of school, 55 years ago.

[Kunzite]

The video with the supposed prank screams fake. Apparently the scared people were actors (as anyone would expect).
I think it was posted as a joke, but I can't stop thinking how much of the pro-mirrorless/EVF arguments are fake, too. Even with so many people believing them.

[c.a.m]

What I would really like to know is whether any professional photographers are making higher profits owing to their switch to a mirrorless system.

There's plenty of discussion concerning specifications and performance, but I think a real measure of success in any upgrade for a Pro shooter would be increased business and profits. Yet, I rarely see any mention of these outcomes. Or, is it really about the user experience or operability?


- Craig

[MikeMcE]

What I would really like to know is whether any professional photographers are making higher profits owing to their switch to a mirrorless system.

There's plenty of discussion concerning specifications and performance, but I think a real measure of success in any upgrade for a Pro shooter would be increased business and profits. Yet, I rarely see any mention of these outcomes. Or, is it really about the user experience or operability?


- Craig

If I followed correctly the need for mirrorless those who need it have been there fo a long time I would think. Interesting thoughts though.


Hang up and DRIVE!

[Dan Rentea]

What I would really like to know is whether any professional photographers are making higher profits owing to their switch to a mirrorless system.

There's plenty of discussion concerning specifications and performance, but I think a real measure of success in any upgrade for a Pro shooter would be increased business and profits. Yet, I rarely see any mention of these outcomes. Or, is it really about the user experience or operability?


- Craig

As someone who started to earn money from photography about 2 years ago, I can tell you that the benefit of switching to mirrorless it's the less work I have to do to get the same images my clients are used to. This reason alone worth the switch for me. A good marketing and a good business plan are the 2 things that can make you higher profits.

[neokind]

As someone who started to earn money from photography about 2 years ago, I can tell you that the benefit of switching to mirrorless it's the less work I have to do to get the same images my clients are used to. This reason alone worth the switch for me. A good marketing and a good business plan are the 2 things that can make you higher profits.

This is a point that I think is missed in many discussions here. It’s not necessarily the case that the features being discussed make you more money—though they may contribute. It is the case that the features make aspects of the job easier and permit the photographer to focus on other aspects of the work, as Dan mentioned it lets him give more attention to posing the model. Or the features could allow you to do a job in less time, giving more time for other jobs or for oneself.

My own experience in moving to mirrorless is similar. Not only does the AF capability give me a high % hit rate, but it allows me to give more attention to composition.

I am not aware of any arguments suggesting that the features are needed by everyone or every shooting situation. Rather, that the trade off in moving to some mirrorless systems offer advantages that may be useful to some photographers in some scenarios.

[Kunzite]

I am not aware of any arguments suggesting that the features are needed by everyone or every shooting situation. Rather, that the trade off in moving to some mirrorless systems offer advantages that may be useful to some photographers in some scenarios.

But in other scenarios, moving to mirrorless could be disadvantageous. This is seldom mentioned (it was Dan who talked about the R's viewfinder lag)

Then, often we're comparing the old (still current, I guess) generation Pentax cameras with the current mirrorless; so the advantages just get larger. The subject tracking is primitive in a K-1 II, and then you have a camera with eye AF... no wonder people would be blown off their socks. I'm more interested in what the next generation of Pentax cameras would look like; if it works well for me, no need to look elsewhere.
Once again, this is subjective: some people can wait, some can't or won't.

Rejecting the DSLRs from the beginning would be a mistake, IMO.

[Benz3ne]

But in other scenarios, moving to mirrorless could be disadvantageous. This is seldom mentioned (it was Dan who talked about the R's viewfinder lag)

Then, often we're comparing the old (still current, I guess) generation Pentax cameras with the current mirrorless; so the advantages just get larger. The subject tracking is primitive in a K-1 II, and then you have a camera with eye AF... no wonder people would be blown off their socks. I'm more interested in what the next generation of Pentax cameras would look like; if it works well for me, no need to look elsewhere.
Once again, this is subjective: some people can wait, some can't or won't.

Rejecting the DSLRs from the beginning would be a mistake, IMO.

+1. A friend of my younger brother wanted/wants (I've lost track) to get into, fairly specifically, macro photography with a budget of £500, mostly for internet use, sometimes for small prints.
For that I suggested that they could get a top of the line lens (D-FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro - seen used oftentimes for around £250) and a body for £250, possibly a K-3 if lucky, possibly a K-5 or one of their iterations, or a K-50/30 with the caveat that there's potential for a fixable flaw with them (aperture solenoid), possibly a K-S2. In short, any of the older bodies have great image quality.

There's not much in the way of mirrorless that would offer the same brightness and magnification of viewfinder, with an inexpensive multi-faceted option for a macro (or portrait, or even tele-landscape) lens that would fit the budget as far as I could see. Add that it's a reasonably weather-proof setup and you're narrowing the field further.

All of this coming from someone who uses (almost) solely mirrorless, in the A7iii, with the exception of some few-and-far-between film shots.

[neokind]

But in other scenarios, moving to mirrorless could be disadvantageous. This is seldom mentioned (it was Dan who talked about the R's viewfinder lag).

Right. I intended the counter example to be implied in my post. Some people might find the features useful or helpful, and others may find the features less so and would be better suited with a different package of features.

[c.a.m]

As someone who started to earn money from photography about 2 years ago, I can tell you that the benefit of switching to mirrorless it's the less work I have to do to get the same images my clients are used to. This reason alone worth the switch for me.

Thanks for your comment. Less work or easier production is good!

- Craig

[GadgetFan]

I appreciate this is a pretty old thread, but I have just bough an A7iii and the tamron 150-500mm with a view to using it for bird photography. I'm hoping the AF makes up for the ergonomics (crap v K1 ii) - I've been toying with the idea of getting a K3iii to pair with my sigma 150-500mm (k1 is just too slow with frame rate & focus). If the A7 performs brilliantly I shall let you all know, but if it doesn't I'm selling and getting the k3iii! (second hand if I can find one!)

[i_trax]

why not

α7IV , has much better AF?