• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • PetaPixel's article

      "I understand that mirrorless cameras have faced the same problem as DSLRs when they were first introduced. The novel technology wasn’t very well developed at first and suffered from some early disadvantages.

      The electronic viewfinder was a revolution, but a very premature one. In theory, the new viewfinder only offered advantages and new features. There are new possibilities of overlays, like grids, histograms, or focus peaking. But electronic viewfinders didn’t hold up to their promises.

      They felt laggy, especially when moving the camera very quickly, the resolution wasn’t great, and in these ways, the EVF had clear disadvantages to the classic optical viewfinder.

      Fast forward to today, though, the flaws of the EVF have largely been extinguished. There isn’t any visible lag and thanks to the advancement in processors, and the framerate stays stable when moving the camera quickly.

      Besides the clear advantages of the EVF, mirrorless cameras also offer other advantages.

      Whereas high-end DSLRs only can shoot up to 14 photographs per second (or 16fps with mirror lockup), mirrorless cameras are already able to get as high as 20 images per second in burst mode. Due to the physical limitations of the mirror, DSLRs will never advance as far as mirrorless in this area.

      The design of mirrorless cameras also allows them to be more compact and lighter.

      It becomes very apparent that mirrorless cameras already beat DSLRs in almost every aspect, and with the heavy investments being poured into mirrorless technology, they will only get further ahead."

      I haven't tried a mirrorless camera, anyone here switched?

    • I switched from a Canon T3i DSLR to a mirrorless Sony a7S a few years ago and will never go back.

      It's smaller, lighter, more versatile, and takes incredible photos and video. I can carry it in (or clip it to) whatever bag I happen to be bringing with me instead of needing a dedicated camera bag just for it. I think it strikes a perfect balance between quality and convenience.

      Here's an example of a shot I took with the a7S on a trip to Iceland. I'm not a professional photographer and I had no prior experience shooting long exposures or auroras. I just stuck the a7S on the ground on a gorillapod and tinkered for a few minutes, and that's what came out. I was amazed.

      This is the kind of shot that I'd never have gotten with the Canon, because to be honest I probably wouldn't have bothered lugging the Canon around everywhere.

    • I slowly transitioned from the 5D Mark III to the Sony A7 line up for my primary camera. I've been through an A7, A7R, A7S, and A7II. Dropped an A7S from a drone 🙈. I drowned an A7 and A7II on that same day.

      I alway keep on buying Sony mirrorless cameras now because I love them. And I've never looked back. Now I'm on the A7RII as my main camera. It's nothing short of incredible. The sensor is remarkable. Mirrorless cameras are smaller, lighter, and cheaper for superior image quality than their DSLR counterparts.

    • Mirrorless are really popular and I fully support the revolution, but after owning several Sonys I prefer the Nikon D850. I like to see the scene as it really is rather than the EVF’s interpretation of the scene via its white balance algorithm, etc.

      I don’t care about size and anyway mirrorless doesn’t affect the size of the lens.

    • I am the opposite, I care about size. The motivation to carry a large arrange of gear for the chance shot in "my" style of shooting made me hand off all my nikon gear to my father and move to the fuji XT1, with the 35mm f1.4 it is a wonderful smaller camera for "my" style of shooting. Much easier with small lenses to get away with places that frown on the supposed professional gear, i go somewhat unnoticed.
      Now if fuji would take some tips from canon and nikon on battery tech, miss the days I cold shoot almost all day on 1 battery! Not with Fuji, need a bandolier of spare units if planning on more than a few images lol..
      very personal taste, I do miss some of the lenses I had. but sometimes it is good to be limited and get creative again.

    • "I don’t care about size and anyway mirrorless doesn’t affect the size of the lens."

      A 70-200 or a 500is is still a beast of a lens? lens size hasn't reduced with the size of the camera?

    • Hi Shay,

      The things that dictate the size for a given focal length lens are: how wide the aperture, how large the camera's sensor, and the quality of the lens.

      The Sony mirrorless A7 bodies are full-frame just like the Nikon dSLRs. So an 85mm lens at f/1.4 has to be physically wide enough (~60mm) to let in enough light regardless of whether it's mirrorless or not.

      Sony has done a good job of making smaller lenses for their mirrorless cameras, but the ones that have a big size advantage have smaller apertures, like a 70-200 f/4 instead of f/2.8. The thing is, I prefer f/2.8.

      The final thing is quality of the lens. Sony does make an 85mm f/1.4 lens that is smaller and lighter (29 ounces) than Sigma or Zeiss lenses, which are shown in the chart below. The thing is, the Sigma and Zeiss lenses are noticeably sharper at f/1.4, which is the aperture I really care about. Also, they avoid vignetting by going to an 86mm filter size instead of the traditional 77mm.

      I said I didn't care about size, but actually I do: I like them bigger for those reasons 👆. And I have one more reason: when I'm at the Body Art Expo and show up with a lens with an 86mm hood, they realize I'm serious. I'm about to buy the Sigma 105mm f/1.4; it's a beast whether you order it for Sony, Canon, or Nikon—it's the same size on all of them.

    • My switch to mirrorless was first and foremost for medical reasons. Not kidding! I had both shoulders operated on (rotator cuff surgery) at the same time. As a pro, guide, and workshop leader, I needed to be able to carry and shoot even right after my surgeries. So, I got into Micro 4/3s. I was instantly hooked, loved the size and weight and features and the lens selection.

      OK Fast forwrd through recovery, and someone gave me a Sony APS-C camera (a6000) to try. Wow! For a tiny bit more money, little bit more size and weight, I had a huge jump in sensor size, image quality, and plenty good files for any high-iso work. Then, having gotten into the Sony system, I got to try the full frame bodies, and well, soon I sold all my Nikon gear, great glass and D810.

      I now shoot with Sony a7rIII, Sony a9, and soon, a Sony a7III. Baldy's right, many lenses are essentially the same in terms of weight and size (you can't change physics). The popular f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) are all pretty much the same weight at Canon or Nikon. But there are a bunch of lenses that are much, much lighter: Compare the Zeiss Loxia 21 f/2.8 to a Canon or Nikon Z Mount 21. Compare the awesome Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8 to Canon or Nikon's similar. So there are some lenses designed for mirrorless that are super good and super light/small.

      I love the EVF. Nothing beats having all that info right there in the viewfinder. I love how Sony keeps innovating and bringing out incremental improvements. I love the sheer number of lenses available in native Sony E-mount. Adapters are available to let folks "transition" easily, by using thier Canon (or Nikon, though it's way easier to adapt Canon glass than Nikon) lenses with the Sony system. For me, I don't use any non-native lenses anymore, since there are now (often multiple) choices for every single focal range. I think the number is now over 100.

      I now carry just 4 lenses: Zeiss 21 f/2.8, Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8, Sony 24-105 f/4, and Sony 100-400 f/4-5.6. I also own the Sony 70-200 f/4, and will carry that when I don't need the 100-400 for wildlife.

    • I've just purchased the Fujifilm X-T20 to get back into photography. Previously I used a low end Canon for day to day photography, but have used more high-end Canon's when I was the second shooter for a wedding photographer. Can't say I miss the sound of mirrored cameras. Looking forward to using this new camera as soon as it arrives!

    • Interesting. I have not yet made the jump to mirrorless yet as I have been a Canon fanatic as long as I have had a camera in my hands. However; I have been toying with the idea of switching mostly because of weight. I would love to have a lighter-weight option for travel photography and the Sony A7 series is super tempting. This thread has given me a lot to think about....

    • I switched to mirrorless 4 years ago and I’ve never looked back. I was the first editorial photographer in Edinburgh turning up to jobs with a mirrorless camera and can still feel the stares from the other photographers in the press pool 😂. As you pointed out in your post, mirrorless has came a long way—even from when I started using them.

      I tried Sony but couldn’t get along with them—it’s real evident to me that Sony is an electronics company and not necessarily a photographic one. I shoot with a Fujifilm X Pro 2, which feels a little like an old film camera 😊. Have you looked into Fuji’s X Trans sensor? It switched the game up in terms of the unique way it’s built and, for me, it shows in the photos it produces.

      The nice thing about the X Pro 2 (and why I chose it) is that it’s a rangefinder camera, so you still get to have an optical viewfinder as well as the EVF.

      Everyone finds their preferred tool, I guess. 🙂

    • I am 5Dmk2 user since past 7 years, it still takes wonderful photos and quite strong too. Now i am thinking to upgrade to Sony Mirrorless and upcoming tamorn 28-75 lens. The main thing that impressed me is eye autofocus, cost, tilt lcd and DR of A7iii

      The one thing that confused me is color science of Sony when shooting portraits, is it really that bad as some people point out?.

      Not in rush just exploring this month :D

    • I’ve never had any issues with color with my A7II, which has the same sensor, and A7RII, though I don’t know much about the specific issues people have had. 

      I always shot raw for more latitude for adjustments, including color, in post. Like all CMOS cameras, shooting JPEG is just a interpretation of the raw data coming off the sensor, and it’s fairly set in stone in terms of adjustment range in post. Like JPEGs, photo editors interpret the RAW to show a default image with no adjustments.

      I find Lightroom and Photoshop often render A7(R)II files as oversaturated. Sometimes they botch the color tint and temp. But RAW editing will lets you fix these issues entirely through adjustments. I apply custom Lightroom presents on import so I never rarely run into problem images. I think Canon DLSR's have the same issues, though maybe Adobe + Canon have perfected default RAW rendering since Canon has been doing this now for nearly two decades with their DSLR's.