Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 84
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,489

    Talk Me Out of a Mirrorless Setup

    OK. After years of thinking about it, I was all set to take the leap and up my photo game. I'm like most posters (poseurs?) on TGR in that I like to shoot skiing/MTB/climbing, landscapes, and vacations (walkaround stuff). Not many portraits or indoor things.

    I'm currently using an S100 P&S (also an unabashed iPhone user). I'm comfortable shooting in full manual, composing for DOF, but that's about it. I'd like to play around with more creative stuff like star trails in the future. Up until recently I was dead set on going this route (mostly due to opinions expressed on TGR):

    Canon DSLR (60D or similar)
    Canon 15-85
    Canon 70-200 f/4L USM

    Of course, the one pro outdoor photog I know started raving about his Sony A6000 last week - says he's leaving the DSLR at home anytime it's not a pro shoot. Now I'm deep down the mirrorless camera wormhole second guessing everything. It seems like the mirrorless setups have big sensors, very capable AF these days (major drawback when I researched a few years ago), and I do like to travel light when possible. Is the DSLR going the way of the buffalo, or is mirrorless the 650B of cameras?

    Any photog equipment I buy will be well beyond my photog skills for years to come, but I'd prefer not to dive into the DSLR world if things are swaying towards mirrorless. What say the collective? If you were starting from scratch, which way would you go?
    Last edited by North; 07-23-2014 at 04:49 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sector 7G
    Posts
    5,667
    I posted this almost three years ago, and was roundly called an idiot. I still stand by my statements.

    As the AF for these cameras has gotten faster, their AF times have rapidly caught up with and even exceed those of DSLR's. The Full frame Sony A7 series (A7, A7s and A7r) are winning lots of converts from the Canon and Nikon ranks, and even pro photographers are using these now.
    This is the worst pain EVER!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The CH
    Posts
    1,465
    I just got an Olympus OM-D E-M10 and am really liking it. I have a Nikon D5100 DSLR and a Canon G11. The Olympus is much smaller than the D5100 and the lenses are also a lot smaller than the Nikon lenses. It is bigger than the G11, but not by much. I think the G11 is retired. At this point I think I'll be selling the DSLR.

    I haven't tried any star trail photos yet, but I think I read that you can watch them build on the LCD or in the viewfinder

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,133
    I have the EM5. On this model, the AF is still lacking, but apparently they have addressed that on both the EM10 and EM1. Though Todds can probably speak more to that. There is a feature on the Olympuses called live bulb, that allows you to watch the picture as it is being recorded, I used it for fourth of July fireworks, and its pretty damn cool. I have a Canon T2i and the 15-85, and I'm considering selling them to buy the 12-40 f2.8 pro lens for my EM5. Unless I'm shooting action or need people to think I know what I'm doing, I grab the EM5. I love that little camera. And they are weather sealed! (not the EM10 though) If you can pay for one of the cameras with advanced AF, I would go for M4/3 over the DSLR, especially if you are planning on lugging it into the backcountry. DSLRs are heavy. Only down side is I don't think there is anything equal to the 70-200 f4 available (yet) for M4/3. If you are interested in video, the panasonic offerings might be a bit better than the olympus. Also check out the Oly PEN series, those look pretty cool too.

    I like to travel and get into the woods, and lighter and smaller means that I'm more likely to carry the camera with me to more places, with much less hassle and pain. When I was traveling in Chile this winter, I felt so much less conspicuous than all the other tourists with their huge DSLRs too.

    This spring I volunteered to shoot an event, I took both cameras, the Olympus OMD EM5 with my 20mm f1.7 and my Canon T2i with a 70-200 f2.8L and a 50 f1.8. I consistently like the shots from the Oly more than the Canon shots. And shooting with the Oly didn't make my back hurt.

    If I were jumping in today, knowing what I now know, I think would go M4/3s. I'm not going to be a pro-photog, and any camera I can take with me to more places means I get more and better photos.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    15,417
    Shooting with a T2i and a 50mm f/1.8 made your back hurt? DC has really turned you into a giant pussy, huh?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,302
    I'd sell all my gear in a heartbeat if Panasonic comes out with a fast 100-300mm lens. The Panny GH4 is really intriguing especially with the 4k video. Couple that with the 12-35mm f2.8, the 35-100mm f2.8, a faster prime and a long fast zoom and my gear bag lightens up at least 30 pounds.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,133
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    Shooting with a T2i and a 50mm f/1.8 made your back hurt? DC has really turned you into a giant pussy, huh?
    I had heard that the 70-200 f2.8 L was a brick, but I didn't realize it actually weighted a metric shitton. I put a grip on the T2i too. But yea, DC has turned me soft, what can I say.

    I gotta get back to the mountains soon.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The CH
    Posts
    1,465
    Edgnar: I was trying to remember what that live-bulb feature was called. Thanks. I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but it sounds cool.

    I'm not sure how to comment on the AF. I take landscape pictures and it works great for that.

    The touch screen LCD takes a picture and lets you set the focus point by touching the screen.

    2 weeks ago B&H had an Olympus promo that offered $100 or $200 off most of their lenses with the purchase of the camera. It's down to $50 on a smaller set of lenses now. It looks like Adorama will let you get up to $200 off one lens now. It might be worth checking other shops if you want to get multiple lenses.

    There is also a deal on a free (AR) handgrip if you purchase it with camera.

    I wound up choosing the EM10 over the panasonic GX7 because I thought the screen and viewfinder were better in bright light. That and the lens promo.

    Someone on another thread suggested the panasonic GM1 to me. It's smaller and doesn't have an EVF. It comes bundled with a very small 12-32 (24-64 equivalent) lens.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    gone
    Posts
    1,134
    cant do much wrong with a mirrorless setup imho, UNLESS you want to use fast action. AF just cant keep up with a DSLR and a nice lens. and yes, ive tried the mirrorless solutions.

    freak~[&]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sector 7G
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by freak View Post
    cant do much wrong with a mirrorless setup imho, UNLESS you want to use fast action. AF just cant keep up with a DSLR and a nice lens. and yes, ive tried the mirrorless solutions.
    This is the worst pain EVER!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Posts
    1,283
    Whatever floats your boat. I would recommend handling whatever alternatives you are looking at though. I was thinking of going mirror less too, but the grip on everything I tried seemed uncomfortable. Of course, there are set ups with bigger grips, but then you start to lose some of the size advantage.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,489
    Thanks for the feedback, guys (and gal) - although now I'm even less certain what to get

    The mirrorless camera tech definitely looks capable - although it sounds like fast telephotos are still rare. Another factor is the $$$ - getting a mirrorless setup with the capabilities of a DSLR setup is going to be pricey.

    I'm still not sure how much I value the weight and space savings of the mirrorless. To me, it's definitely more of a luxury than a necessity. I'm in the camp that defines 'pocketable' as something that fits in my back/front pants pocket, napoleon pocket on my jacket, etc without removing the lens. Anything larger and it's going in or on the outside of a pack. From that standpoint, the mirrorless and the DSLR are not so different. There a few specific scenarios (MTB mostly) where I think the mirrorless could come along when the DSLR would stay at home.

    Still leaning towards DSLR, but I think I need to head to a camera shop and play with the mirrorless stuff. The saga continues...
    Last edited by North; 07-24-2014 at 01:46 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,128
    A few thoughts.

    I have been messing about with Sonys bit. Had an NEX 5 for a few years, Been playing with A6000 and A7 recently - with both the old "original" crop lenses and newer Zeiss & G. Have had a D700 for a long time. Know folks with high end Nikon and Canon who were shooting same recent conditions that I was.

    "DSLR" covers a range from junk to insanely capable. It pays to be really clear where in the spectrum you are considering. The top of line mirrorless will crush the low end DSLRs. But the picture gets muddier as you go up the DSLR food chain.

    The NEX 5 was small and light, and really capable in its space. I was able to shoot unobtrusively in poor light in markets in Cambodia - with very happy results. And to carry the whole deal in a small shoulder bag. A good DSLR could have taken better shots. But you'd never have gotten the shots...

    The A6000 and A7 are each amazing in their own right. The A6000 is smaller, and focuses and shoots a ton faster (really fast). The A7 sensor is *notably* better than the A6000. Slow focusing though. But the A7 frame rate can be painfully slow. Moving your focus point around is a PITA on both relative to a good DSLR. External controls on the A6000 and A7 are quite different - but I like them both. And that is coming from someone who has found lots of DSLR controls cluttered. My only complaint is the two Sonys have very different controls - so moving between them leads to many screw ups (at least for me).

    Glass matters. The high end Sony/Zeiss lenses are materially better than the lower end ones. And it shows even on the crop bodies. While they offer nowhere near the range of offerings of Nikon and Canon, they are clearly investing big time. It seems to me that, in general, Sony is betting on high ISO sensor performance and good stabilization to let them do slower lighter E mount lenses (both crop and full frame). Just subjectively, been really impressed with the F4 G 70-200 for my purposes.

    No matter what anyone says - IMO the focus and tracking on the mirrorless are just not up to cameras like the D800, Mk III, etc and above. Have not compared to other current models... but even my older D700 seems to do better. Yeah - the little guys are great when conditions are good. Not so great when contrast is low &/or light is questionable. Long seeks & trouble following. The good DSLRs still rule here IMO.

    OTOH, I can stuff an A7 or A6000, Zeiss 24-70, and Sony G 70-200 in a daypack and have room and wight capacity to spare. Not pocket sized - but not 20-40 pounds of kit either. And even that package of stuff is cheap compared to a high end DSLR & matching lenses.

    I don't know the whole space, but my understanding is that the weather sealing is still generally better across the board on high end DSLRs.

    Obviously only you know what your trade offs are. I am tipping toward going all-in on the Sony mirrorless. Because I hate the weight and size of the big cameras. And the quality on the mirrorless is getting darn good - good enough to make the trade off make sense for me. And I think they will get there across the board on native lenses - including big telephotos. Dollar for dollar, I think the mirrorless are a better value for most of us. But there is no doubt in my mind that, in terms of absolute image quality and some control flexibility, a good quality DSLR with top tier lenses will still rule across a wide range of conditions.

    Sorry if this was a bit of a ramble.... May or may not have time to post a few actual images later....

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The CH
    Posts
    1,465
    Do you have a budget yet? I think an entry level DSLR with kit lens will cost less than most mirrorless rigs. You will have a lot more options in the used DSLR market also.

    If you want small take a look at the panasonic GM1 with 12-32 kit lens. I think it may be getting pretty close to your definition of small.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,489
    Quote Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
    Sorry if this was a bit of a ramble.... May or may not have time to post a few actual images later....
    Thanks! Lots of good insight. FWIW "DSLR" in my case means 60D or similar. I was budgeting ~1500 for the setup I described in my first post.

    RE: Value - this is what really got me thinking about the mirrorless in the first place. Cost of entry is less for the DSLR route, but I'd hate to base the decision on $$$ alone. I should probably get a better idea of my max budget and what it would cost to get the closest mirrorless analog for my ideal DSLR setup - I'd be OK spending more but I don't see myself dropping $4K to save weight/size and be on the bleeding edge of new tech.
    Last edited by North; 07-24-2014 at 02:02 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sector 7G
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by North View Post
    Thanks! Lots of good insight. FWIW "DSLR" in my case means 60D or similar. I was budgeting ~1500 for the setup I described in my first post.

    RE: Value - this is what really got me thinking about the M4/3 in the first place. Cost of entry is less for the DSLR route, but I'd hate to base the decision on $$$ alone. I should probably get a better idea of my max budget and what it would cost to get the closest M4/3 analog for my ideal DSLR setup - I'd be OK spending more but I don't see myself dropping $4K to save weight/size and be on the bleeding edge of new tech.
    Skip m4/3 and get something with a APS-C sized sensor. You won't regret it. It's MUCH easier to use legacy and adapted DSLR lenses on 1.5 crop factor camera (APS-C) vs a 2.0 crop factor camera (m4/3).
    This is the worst pain EVER!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    Skip m4/3 and get something with a APS-C sized sensor. You won't regret it. It's MUCH easier to use legacy and adapted DSLR lenses on 1.5 crop factor camera (APS-C) vs a 2.0 crop factor camera (m4/3).
    Thanks for the clarification (and reminder of my naivety )- at some point I began using mirrorless and m4/3 interchangeably. But yes, I think APS-C sized options are the most intriguing.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sector 7G
    Posts
    5,667
    Ben is a Mag, even if he doesn't post very often. He "recently" made the switch from a FF Canon DSLR setup to a Fuji mirrorless.

    http://www.benjacobsenphoto.com/2014...-i-landscapes/
    This is the worst pain EVER!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,495
    I'll be honest, I initially regarded mirrorless cameras as a gimmick and viewed them with disdain. But then I thought about it and realized that I don't really care how the internal mechanics of the camera work, as long as I can get the picture I want. I don't necessarily need the weight savings of a mirrorless setup right now, but it wouldn't be bad. So if I were to consider such a system, what are my options right now?

    I currently have a Canon 5D2 body and for lenses I have Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye, Canon 16-35/2.8, Canon 35/1.4, Canon 50/1.4, Sigma 85/1.4, and Canon 70-200/2.8. For any replacement system, I'd like to have the following as a minimum:

    - Full frame (I just like the shallower DoF of a FF)
    - Fast lenses (f/2.8 minimum, f/1.4 or faster preferred, especially for primes)
    - At least one UWA (in the 15-35 range)
    - One or two mid-range primes (35-85 range) -- the 35L is my favourite lens and I'd love something like that
    - A telephoto zoom (50-200 range) with image stabilization -- the 70-200/2.8 is my second favourite lens
    - Good low-light/high-ISO performance
    - Accurate AF
    - Easily customizable (e.g. I currently use back-button focusing, I have the joystick set up to switch focus points with one touch, etc.)
    - Good wireless remotes/triggers (I love my Vello trigger, with which I create/customize lots of shooting "programs"/schedules)

    How much would all this cost? That's obviously the other big question.
    Gallery || Facebook || Instagram
    Go that way, really fast...if something gets in your way, TURN!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Posts
    1,283
    Sony a7/a7r/a7s is the only full frame mirror less option right now AFAIK, and the native lens lineup is kinda limited. There are however adapters that would let you keep using your canon glass with af or there are adapters for all sorts of old mf glass too.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,495
    Quote Originally Posted by geomorph View Post
    Sony a7/a7r/a7s is the only full frame mirror less option right now AFAIK, and the native lens lineup is kinda limited. There are however adapters that would let you keep using your canon glass with af or there are adapters for all sorts of old mf glass too.
    ^ Yes, the adapters make it an easier decision, since changing lenses would be potentially quite $$$!

    On reading more about the A7r, the other thing I just learned is that most people are switching not because of the weight savings, but because of the sensor. Sony's sensor is apparently superb and outresolves anything on the market by Canon (and is on par with Nikon's top model). People are talking about how Canon's high-end L lenses perform so much better on the A7r than on the 5D3.

    I just may have to play around with the A7r at the camera store next weekend!
    Gallery || Facebook || Instagram
    Go that way, really fast...if something gets in your way, TURN!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,128
    The a7r is the same sensor as the Nikon D800E. With good glass, it is ridiculous (based on a family member using the D800 with effectively the same sensor). I'm talking zooming in on a picture of an owl in a tree and being able to see not just feathers, but pretty much a macro view of individual feathers. I'm sure that with good Canon glass + that sensor, amazing images are possible. That said, I'd pay serious attention to the focus and burst speeds on the a7r. They would make me crazy. Even the a7 drives me a shade nuts at times. I'd also look into to whether or not you want the potential post-processing overhead of that specific sensor. Let us know what you think if you play with it.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Da burgh
    Posts
    2,664
    Do you know about borrowlenses.com? Rent the models you're thinking of for cheaper than buying and flipping if you don't like them. I just rented a 6D a few months back to see what all the fuss was about and it was a great experience.

    The OMD is cheap as hell from Olympus refurbished. I got mine for 20% off refurb price during one of their sales that happens a few times a year. Oh and Live bulb/live time is amazing. Well worth the price of entry to the system. It is especially awesome if you are doing landscape astrophotography and light painting an object in the foreground, or using dark ND filters for daytime long exposures. No more guesswork involved.

    Also the 12-40 f/2.8 is amazing, and next year we will have both 7-14mm, and 40-150mm f/2.8 lenses to complete the collection. It's an exciting time to be an Olympus micro 4/3s guy.
    Last edited by couloirman; 07-27-2014 at 01:50 PM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,489
    Quick update here:

    I ended up getting a Fuji XT-1 w/18-55 and 55-200 lenses just before taking some big trips this year. In short, I love the camera, and have definitely been shooting more because of it. It is not intuitive as an action sports camera (or my skills may just be super weak), but for me it works really well. I think an experienced photog could get A LOT out of it.

    Some photos from my South Africa trip, which was the first time I really started using the XT-1 can be found here:
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...uth-Africa-TR)

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    shadow of HS butte
    Posts
    6,397
    Bump

    So two years later, what is the verdict on this? Is mirrorless the way to go for someone getting into the game? My cheaper PaS shit the bed last year and I'm going nuts not having a real camera around. To be straight up I'm only looking at Sony cameras because I can get a decent % off.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •