Did " We " the consumer need mirrorless or :-

woof woof said:
I suppose it all depends on the tech you are using and how stuck in your ways you are. Some OVF's were clearly rubbish ditto early evf's. These days I'd take an average evf over the best OVF ever fitted to any SLR or DSLR because of the advantages they bring and because despite being a ocd suffering geek I'm not completely stuck in my ways when it comes to vf's.

Given the choice of a clear full frame showing evf allowing me to see things no unaided optical system can and a speck afflicted dim ovf with bugs walking about in it (I had that more than once) which doesn't even show me the whole frame I'll take the evf every single time :D
Click to expand...
Dare I mention the Zenit E OVF? :D
 
whyone said:
What are people's expectations these days vs. days of yore?

Genuine question - I don't have the foggiest about wedding photography!
Click to expand...
It’s a completely different thing.

Couples back in the day only had staged photos taken after the ceremony then the ceremony had to be covered, then the reception and speeches had to be covered then getting ready had to be covered then the dancing. Lots now do second day celebrations and want coverage of that as well.

Style of photography people expect has very much switched to documentary over staged. It’s constantly evolving there is even a big difference between now and 10 years ago.
 
My offer for the mirrorless was declined
 
f/2.8 said:
It’s a completely different thing.

Couples back in the day only had staged photos taken after the ceremony then the ceremony had to be covered, then the reception and speeches had to be covered then getting ready had to be covered then the dancing. Lots now do second day celebrations and want coverage of that as well.

Style of photography people expect has very much switched to documentary over staged. It’s constantly evolving there is even a big difference between now and 10 years ago.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

But why would the documentary style still not be easily achievable (given the necessary skills and experience) with a good DSLR or two?
 
whyone said:
Interesting.

But why would the documentary style still not be easily achievable (given the necessary skills and experience) with a good DSLR or two?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of reasons but one of the big ones is the silent shutter allows me to capture stuff that I wouldn’t be able to with the click clack of a DSLR. People at weddings can be very camera aware it’s much easier to capture stuff with them unaware with a silent shutter.
 
woof woof said:
I suppose it all depends on the tech you are using and how stuck in your ways you are. Some OVF's were clearly rubbish ditto early evf's. These days I'd take an average evf over the best OVF ever fitted to any SLR or DSLR because of the advantages they bring and because despite being a ocd suffering geek I'm not completely stuck in my ways when it comes to vf's.

Given the choice of a clear full frame showing evf allowing me to see things no unaided optical system can and a speck afflicted dim ovf with bugs walking about in it (I had that more than once) which doesn't even show me the whole frame I'll take the evf every single time :D
Click to expand...
Long story short I only use mine with flip out LCD in handycam mode. Only wish it was 6"...
 
whyone said:
Interesting.

But why would the documentary style still not be easily achievable (given the necessary skills and experience) with a good DSLR or two?
Click to expand...
I think you're right. Probably nobody NEEDS a mirrorless, just as nobody NEEDS an electric car, but people buy them for their own reasons, and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe mirrorless cameras can be more forgiving of bad technique, in the same way that that things like adaptive cruise control, parking assist, collision avoidance systems and so on can help bad drivers, there may be an element of that to it.

I'm now retired and don't need a mirrorless camera, but I thought about it and decided (rightly or wrongly) that I would only be happy with one of the very top models, and that my "needs" don't justify the price, but we're all different. Also, for the type of photography I do, a good DSLR is perfect for me.
f/2.8 said:
There are a lot of reasons but one of the big ones is the silent shutter allows me to capture stuff that I wouldn’t be able to with the click clack of a DSLR. People at weddings can be very camera aware it’s much easier to capture stuff with them unaware with a silent shutter.
Click to expand...
Good point, but doesn't a rangefinder camera have a near-silent shutter too? Henri Carter-Bresson was the original "invisible photographer" and although I accept that he would probably have used a mirrorless camera if he had one, he managed perfectly well without one:)
f/2.8 said:
It’s a completely different thing.

Couples back in the day only had staged photos taken after the ceremony then the ceremony had to be covered, then the reception and speeches had to be covered then getting ready had to be covered then the dancing. Lots now do second day celebrations and want coverage of that as well.

Style of photography people expect has very much switched to documentary over staged. It’s constantly evolving there is even a big difference between now and 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Agreed, everything has changed. Back in the day, most couples wanted traditional wedding photos, hired the local scout hut for their wedding reception and kept costs down, now it's the opposite. Maybe digital technology drove the changes, in the sense that photographers could suddenly take thousands of shots with an absolute minimum of skill or knowledge, maybe it was that wedding photography no longer needed people with the skills needed for arranging formal shots and managing people well, it doesn't matter.

I haven't done any wedding photography for 17 years or so. I used to enjoy doing it, although it didn't pay compared to my normal photographic work, I was forced to stop due to illness. I accept that if I tried doing it today I wouldn't have a clue:)
 

f/2.8 said:
Hence stupid posts like manufacturers only introduced mirrorless so they could devalue old kit and make more money.
Click to expand...
The use of the abusive term 'stupid' to describe someone you don't know and may not even have met, is quite derogatory they may be misguided and also you may be, but terming what they say is 'stupid' really uncalled for, every one has an opinion even me, but there is no need to use that term
f/2.8 said:
The world moves on you should too.
Click to expand...
Why? If that person is comfortable with what they do or use, who are you to say what they should do. Just because something is new, I would suggest that new isn't necessarily better.
 
Last edited:
To all members . . .

This is an interesting thread and some people are bound to disagree with each other.

Disagreement is healthy but abuse is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

So feel free to disagree with other people's opinions, but don't be rude or offensive.

:police:
 
Garry Edwards said:
To all members . . .

This is an interesting thread and some people are bound to disagree with each other.

Disagreement is healthy but abuse is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

So feel free to disagree with other people's opinions, but don't be rude or offensive.

:police:
Click to expand...
Some people don't seem to be listening . . .

So, I've deleted some unacceptable posts, and just in case that isn't clear enough, the next step will be a ban.
 
The advantage of the mirrorless systems as presently developed is that they make reliably possible things that would have been difficult to achieve and make possible things that were previously impossible to achieve *in some scenarios*.

If you don't like them, fine, but they are much more than a cash cow. Photography is a craft, but as well as an art, it's sometimes a bit of olympic sport too, and technical advances help.
 
GeeJay57 said:
I dislike the EVF flicker when panning. Not seen one yet that doesn’t do that (not tried a R1 yet, but R7, R6, R5 and R3 all do it). That is not being stuck in my ways or being an old git, I simply dislike it.
Click to expand...
that will be because on those models they probably don't have the 120hz mode enabled making it buttery smooth. If you have the power saving mode on it disables it. There's a massive difference between the two modes.
 
Last edited:
Before I went back to film usage, I owned a Sony bridge camera which had a EV and it was appalling! Dreadful is a better description. I think I kept that camera for a couple of months and returned it to the place I bought it because it was so bad. That coupled with the miss information that it had Schneider APO zoom lens which was anything but, I got most of my money back, especially when I discovered that the APO description was only one single special element and not a completely true apochromatic lens which wasn't mentioned in the advertising blurb. Infact the remainder of the lens was not made by Schneider either

It was that which converted me back to film.
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
Before I went back to film usage, I owned a Sony bridge camera which had a EV and it was appalling! Dreadful is a better description. I think I kept that camera for a couple of months and returned it to the place I bought it because it was so bad. That coupled with the miss information that it had Schneider APO zoom lens which was anything but, I got most of my money back, especially when I discovered that the APO description was only one single special element and not a completely true apochromatic lens which wasn't mentioned in the advertising blurb. Infact the remainder of the lens was not made by Schneider either

It was that which converted me back to film.
Click to expand...
The EVF's in modern mid-high end mirrorless are far superior to the older cheap EVF's you would find in a typical bridge camera, you might be pleasantly surprised if you try one.

It was also quite common to give lenses an 'APO' designation when they contain a single APO element - the lack of such labelling in many of today's high end lenses is more due to the fact that such elements are now common, so the APO label has become somewhat redundant, as it is no longer a distinguishing feature.
 
keety said:
that will be because on those models they probably don't have the 120hz mode enabled making it buttery smooth. If you have the power saving mode on it disables it. There's a massive difference between the two modes.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I don’t think those I’ve tried were in power-save mode , but will check that out next time I’m in a position to and see if that makes it better for me.

The other thing I’d like to know is how current EVFs perform in low light. Now that now they are OLED displays, my expectation is that black is black and that there isn’t a general backlighting ‘glow’ ever-present in low light like there used to be with older EVF display technologies.

I know there are many that don’t make much use of the EVF and instead prefer to use the display on the rear panel. I do this too sometimes and the option to swivel the screen (wife’s EOS 80D, my 7DII screen is fixed) is very useful. However for motorsport and wildlife, I invariably use the eye-level viewfinder because for me that makes me more ‘connected’ to the camera and what I’m targetting.

Another disappointment for the R7 was absence of connections for a battery grip.
 
Rodinal said:
Before I went back to film usage, I owned a Sony bridge camera which had a EV and it was appalling! Dreadful is a better description.
Click to expand...
Different technologies suit different people.

I used Sony's original super bridge camera, the APS format R1, for several years and thought the eye level electronic finder very good. I'm currently using a pair of A65s and am quite happy with their finders also. Finders are surprisingly personal things and there's no point in saying much more than you like or dislike a particular instance.
 
GeeJay57 said:
I dislike the EVF flicker when panning. Not seen one yet that doesn’t do that (not tried a R1 yet, but R7, R6, R5 and R3 all do it). That is not being stuck in my ways or being an old git, I simply dislike it.
Click to expand...
Try a better brand not just one. Or even looking at the settings you never know to set things up properly for shooting needs.
 
Last edited:
Pound Coin said:
Surely a conventional camera has plate film and exposure is achieved by sliding a blind out and back in.
Click to expand...

Garry Edwards said:
Whatever gave you that idea? :) That would just give very uneven exposure. The method was to take the lens cap off and then put it back on again.
But you're right, all improvements to technology are incremental and we don't actually "need" them.
:exit:
Click to expand...

Then they invented the shutter mechanism
 
alfbranch said:
Then they invented the shutter mechanism
Click to expand...
Not a button, a bulb - where do you think the name bulb or the symbol B comes from? Some of these young photographers . . . :headbang:

Back on topic, isn't there an image distortion problem caused by the rolling shutter on mirrorless cameras with fast-moving subjects? Is it serious?
 
With the newest sensors it is less of an issue.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Not a button, a bulb - where do you think the name bulb or the symbol B comes from? Some of these young photographers . . . :headbang:

Back on topic, isn't there an image distortion problem caused by the rolling shutter on mirrorless cameras with fast-moving subjects? Is it serious?
Click to expand...
The distortion provided by shutters is an old one going back to perhaps 1920's. There is a well known racing car picture taken at Brooklands on a 10x8 camera with a focal plane shutter where the blinds travelled left to right and the wheels on the car had taken on an elliptical shape because the shutter travelled so slowly that the image was distorted when the leading edge of the wheel exposed the trailing edge a fraction of a second later than the 1st. Vertical travelling focal plane shutter do not have the same obvious defect.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Not a button, a bulb - where do you think the name bulb or the symbol B comes from? Some of these young photographers . . . :headbang:

Back on topic, isn't there an image distortion problem caused by the rolling shutter on mirrorless cameras with fast-moving subjects? Is it serious?
Click to expand...
It depends on the specific camera, the shutter mode being used, and the scene being photographed.
Many mirrorless cameras have the option of using a fully mechanical shutter, an electronic first shutter + mechanical second shutter, or a fully electronic shutter.
In full mechanical mode or electronic first shutter, they are the same as a DSLR in terms of rolling shutter (it's possible, but the situations where it occurs are rare)
In fully electronic mode it is model and scene dependant - the latest Sony A9iii, for example, has the first full frame 'global shutter', where the entire sensor is read simultaneously, and so does not suffer from any rolling shutter - with other models and manufacturers it depends on the scenes and the speed of the sensor readout - a number of cameras have a fast readout, which minimises rolling shutter (but it can still occur), while for the majority the advice is to avoid fully electronic shutter is situations where rolling shutter is likely to occur.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Not a button, a bulb - where do you think the name bulb or the symbol B comes from? Some of these young photographers . . . :headbang:
Click to expand...
I've got a 5 metre bulb release.
It's been following me around for more than 50 years and I still haven't shaken the cunning little booger off... :tumbleweed:
 
LeeRatters said:
The only downside that springs to mind, is that you have to switch the camera on to look through & see what a shot/framing will look like without an OVF.
Click to expand...
This was my biggest issue when first switching to mirrorless - especially as it seemed to drain the battery quite heavily. But they seem to have fixed that on many, and with my A6600 I haven't even got a spare battery - I haven't been able to run it down yet.
 
Personally, I didn't "need", mirrorless.

I was happy with my Nikon D7200 and assorted lenses overall, what I wasn't happy with was the bulk and weight, I found it was being left at home more and more, after looking into mirrorless and realising the size and weight advantages around 5 years ago, I picked up a Fujifilm X-T20 from the classifieds on here, I still use it today and can't see myself parting with it until it dies. It's so light and compact that it gets used more than any other camera I've used.

That said, I do keep finding myself considering an X-H1 and then have to remind myself of why I got rid of the Nikon!

So no, I didn't need mirrorless, but it's advantages certainly got me back into photography!
 
I had to move to ML to reduce weight. However, this has not led to any significant difference in image quality. I have still kept my Canon DSLR which I still use occasionally.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
I had to move to ML to reduce weight. However, this has not led to any significant difference in image quality. I have still kept my Canon DSLR which I still use occasionally.

Dave
Click to expand...

Image quality isn't really going to be effected, let's be realistic, if you compare crop sensor to crop sensor, or full frame to full frame, every camera released over the last 5 years will produce broadly similar images, in regards to image quality.
 
It's called progress. There is virtually no technology that we actually "need" . There's a big difference between need and want, in most cases it's a personal choice, if you want to keep and use older tech then do so, my most modern camera I have is a 1Dmk4, my telly is over a dozen years old. Until this month my computer was a 2009 iMac, now I upgraded to a 2017 iMac.

If you don't want a mirrorless camera, then simply don't buy one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top