Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Which Mirrorless?  (Read 3986 times)
scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2013, 10:08:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I have no doubts that more lenses will be released, together with a more "advanced" camera, Canon themselves have said so. Right now, the two native lenses are very high quality: the 18-55 zoom is very good and metal built, and the 22mm f/2 prime lens is terrific. And of course, you can mount all the EF and EFS lenses. As for the poor focus performance, I find it is not poor at all; performance is actually very good, can be slower than some cameras at times, but it is very accurate.

The focus performance has been widely criticised but as I've not tried one myself I can't say if it'd be adequate for me... but the existing camera wouldn't be as I've tried shooting with a no VF camera and didn't like it so it's VF equipped cameras only for me.

I'm not to sure that I'd be interested in using a CSC with Canon EF-S or EF lenses. In fact I know I wouldn't be.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2013, 09:11:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a Nikon D800 and a D3, and also a large hybrid Panasonic/Olympus (lenses only for the Oly) system. The *only* reason for buying a mirrorless system IMHO is compactness, both in body and lenses. And it doesn't take much of an upward size change to make a serious difference in weight and compactness. For example, I have both the new Panasonic GH3 and the older GH2, and while, when you look at the specs, the GH3 seems only insignificantly larger, is IS larger and that small increase in size has taken it from "compact" into DSLR territory. It still uses the small lenses, but it's somewhat lost its grip on compactness. The fact is, for almost all *critical* applications, the Nikon system is better. There are good reasons for size and weight: you get more technology, you get better ergonomics, etc.

BUT: I use the Panasonic for almost all informal and street people-shooting, and also when I travel for non-photogaphic reasons. My best travel kit is a GX1 and two zooms, the Panny 12-35 f2.8 and the 35-100 f2.8. These are big lenses *for the system,* but they cover the equivalent of 24-70 and 70-200, and, compared to other f2.8 zoom lenses for larger sensors, are very compact.

I think people obsess too much about sensors. Most mirrorless cameras are made to be hand-held, and if you're going to hand-hold a camera, the quality of the photo will depend much more on your hand-holding ability than in the differences between sensor sizes. And if you're NOT going to hand hold it -- if you're going to use a tripod -- then why are you looking for mirrorless at all? You can get better cameras with better resolution and better lens systems by going to a DSLR, and since you're carrying a tripod around, what difference will a few ounces in camera- and lens-size make? And, the lower end DSLRs won't cost much more, if any more at all.

I chose the Panny system over the NEX simply because compactness was the most important consideration, and since a camera has to have lenses, I wanted compact lenses, too. Generally speaking, the NEX system doesn't have them -- the lenses are the same size as the lenses for a Nikon APS-C. If you're basically a prime shooter, your mileage may vary. (But I don't know why people with less-that-maximal-quality cameras are prime shooters, either. The difference between a prime and a high-quality zoom is almost non-existent. If I used a 35mm Zeiss prime against my 35-70 zoom @ 35mm, I suspect the Zeiss might come off better in technical studies...unless the good frame for your shot was, say 50mm. Then, you shoot with your 35 and crop; with the zoom, you crop with the lens and use the whole sensor. And so on...)

M4/3 IMHO beats the other systems mostly on system size and flexibility -- the choice of lenses. NEX falters on lens size and lens availability, although the quality is excellent if the lens is good. The other contenders don't have the system size for the time being, or the lens-included compactness. Again, for serious photographers, I think compactness, and the advantages that confers, is the only reason for going to mirrorless.
Logged
RichDesmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2013, 10:02:45 PM »
ReplyReply

...I think people obsess too much about sensors... Most mirrorless cameras are made to be hand-held, and if you're going to hand-hold a camera, the quality of the photo will depend much more on your hand-holding ability than in the differences between sensor sizes.
M4/3 IMHO beats the other systems mostly on system size and flexibility -- the choice of lenses. NEX falters on lens size and lens availability, although the quality is excellent if the lens is good. The other contenders don't have the system size for the time being, or the lens-included compactness. Again, for serious photographers, I think compactness, and the advantages that confers, is the only reason for going to mirrorless.

Good points. I've got an m4/3 system (GF1, G3 and some lenses), and IMO it's a good set of compromises. (And all systems are a set of compromises)
It's an old cliche, but a very true one, that the best camera is the one you have with you. The m4/3 stuff is with me in a lot of everyday places and times that the DSLR equipment wouldn't be.

And besides great photos rarely have much to do with sensor size, lens MTF, or much of the other technical stuff we all like to get our panties in a twist about. Smiley
Logged
Eric Brody
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2013, 12:54:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I have an Olympus OM-D and love it. It's no D800E though and that's what I use if image quality trumps weight, eg short hikes, primary photo trips. I get a lot of use out of the OM-D, it has the first electronic finder I have found acceptable. I use mostly primes with the OM-D, the 45 f/1.8 and 20 f/1.7 are pretty good. I recently spent a pleasant afternoon comparing a friend's Fuji X E-1 to the OMD with raw files and primes on the OMD vs the excellent zoom and the 35 f/1.4 on the Fuji. Upon coming home and looking at the files, (it's a bit of a challenge with the Fuji because of the raw converter issue (see Lloyd Chambers blog)), I concluded that while the X E-1 is excellent, the OM-D files are so close that I decided not to switch at this time. The Fuji feels really nice, solid and professional. The OM-D focuses faster and has in body stabilization, a wonderful feature. Only the 14-55 zoom on the Fuji is stabilized. If I did not have the investment in the OM-D, I'd really consider the Fuji.

My major complaint about the MFT system is that the high quality primes such as the Olympus 75 f/1.8 and the Olympus 12 f/2 are so expensive, and to add insult do not include a lens shade! I just paid less for my Nikon 85mm f/1.8 than either of the Olympus lenses. The Fuji system is "younger" so does not have the lens variety that the MFT systems have... yet, and both can use legacy Nikon, Canon, and Leica lenses with adapters and manual focus. But the Fuji with lenses from the new 12 to the 60 macro with the 14-55 zoom as well is certainly a functional system. For basic image quality in a camera to come pretty close to a "real" DSLR, these are the only two cameras I'd even consider at this time. Neither fits in a pocket, that's what point and shoots are for, but both are highly functional camera systems capable of impressive quality regardless of their size. Indeed, my friend with the Fuji was using an 8x10 only a few years ago, skipped medium format, went to a high quality DSLR (D3X then D800E) and now even on photo trips, takes just the Fuji! And... he produces exquisite high quality prints.
Logged
Eric Brody
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2013, 03:54:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I forgot to mention the Sigma DP Merrill's but there's an entire thread here on these excellent cameras, with which I have zero experience. Also Lloyd Chambers blog has a lot of info on them as well. FWIW he just seems to love them and feels they compare favorably to the upcoming Leica M240 at a fraction of the price.

These are good times for photographers. We have many excellent choices these days at many price points, sizes, and levels of technology, and the glass is better than ever. Thom Hogan talks about "last camera" syndrome. I said my Arca Swiss 4x5 was my last camera, after I said my Hasselblad was my last camera, after I said my Nikon F2 was my last camera. At some point some camera will be my last, I'm not getting any younger.

Eric
Logged
mgear
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2013, 04:03:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally, instead of the GX1, I'd get the G3. It's basically a GX1 but with the viewfinder already attached. The Image quality is pretty much the same and the only major difference that you won't notice from looking at it while turned off is that the UI is different. That's about it that I know of.

I recently sold my G3 and all of my legacy lenses to try the NEX system. The 5n focuses pretty quick with the 1.02 update and has manual controls for video and all that jazz. The only gripe that I have is that the EVF is pretty pricey (Saving now!).
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad