Pros/Cons of mirrorless

What are the pros / cons of a mirrorless camera? I see Nikon is unveiling two new ones, the Z series full-frame camera, the Z 7 & 6

Allan

What are the pros / cons of a mirrorless camera? I see Nikon is unveiling two new ones, the Z series full-frame camera, the Z 7 & 6

Allan

This has been a long running 'discussion' over on DPreview [sort of like Cruise Critic for cameras, but with extreme 'gearhead' geekiness and pixel peepers]

My opinion is that the camera hardware will not be the limiting factor - all the systems are capable of excellent results, assuming equivalent photographer skill.

There are three families of interchangeable lens digital cameras

• SLR - with a mirror allowing the lens to feed the image sensor/film or the viewfinder
  
• Rangefinder - The Leica 'M' is the only survivor of this family
  
• Mirrorless - I like a name that did not catch on 'EVIL' Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens'
  

The SLR family has decades of refinement for its optical and mechanical systems - and provided the advantage of re-use of lenses designed for film cameras [the same goes for Leica rangefinders, only at much higher price points]

SLR cameras provide an optical path to the viewfinder, even when the camera is off, so you have the potential of saving battery charge.

Ten years ago, there was a large variety of available SLR lenses, and only the first few for mirrorless. Today the mirrorless systems have a full range of native lenses, plus easy adaptability for other vendor's lenses [the 'L' mount alliance will include an official Canon EF to L mount adapter, just as Canon will have a EF to R adapter]. There is no size advantage for mirrorless long lenses - a 300mm F4 lens will be the same size for any lens mount [or sensor size].

SLR cameras have some disadvantages, also resulting from decades of refinements ;) The flipping mirror requires space between the sensor/film plane and rear lens element, so wide angle lenses [anything shorter than the 'normal lens' are optically a 'wide adapter + a normal lens' [retrofocal is the buzzword].

The falling mirror can be noisy [as heard in many places like press conferences or weddings]. The distance from the lens to the focus sensor may not be quite the same as the distance to image sensor, sometimes requiring fine tuning.

Mirrorless has the advantage of full time live view, with the electronic viewfinder displaying the rendered image [with selected adjustments applied], histograms showing the current exposure range, blown highlight 'zebra' indicators, focus peaking for manual focus aids, electronic level indicators....

Folks with SLR optical viewfinders typically pull their camera away and peek at the screen on the back to gauge results - possibly missing the next shot.

The coupled mirrorless disadvantage is the camera must be on to power the viewfinder.

I tend to use a silent electronic shutter most of the time - and yes the camera is silent. When using electronic flash the mechanical shutter is needed, but that is quiet as there is no flipping mirror.

Some SLR makers [Pentax] have adopted a mirrorless innovation of providing image stabilization by moving the sensor in multiple axises. SLR makers relied on in lens optical stabilization as the technology was developed and refined for film cameras [some recent mirrorless, like Canon and Fuji have elected to continue relying on OIS]

Pros are largely in the potential once you free the limitations of the mirror. Some cameras do a better job of realizing the potential than others.

The Sony a9 comes closest to realizing the potential:

20 frames per second shooting in total silence, with a viewfinder that doesn’t blackout at all, while giving autofocus over 90% of the frame, in addition to being able to realiably detect and focus on the subject’s eye.

No other dslr or mirrorless can do anything like that.

More generically, pros of full frame mirrorless over full frame dslr:

- EVF, bigger and brighter than a dslr OVF and allowing more useful information. Can preview exposure, white balance, etc— before you shoot. Can use live histograms, etc.

- can have AF points over the entire frame instead of just the middle.

- can have more intelligent AF including face detect, eye af. (Nikon doesn’t have eye-af yet)

-can allow for superior lens options

-allows vibration free shooting, thereby improving image quality

-can allow totally silent shooting

-can enable faster burst shooting (though Canon’s first model is quite slow) than a comparably priced dslr

-AF can be far more precise, with fewer back/front focus issues

-camera and some lenses can be a bit smaller and lighter

Cons:

- worse battery life

- some people don’t like EVF’s

- mirrorless AF still maturing for tracking and continuous focus. On Sony models, most people would agree it’s basically as good as most of all DSLRs. Nikons are a bit behind — not quite as good as Nikon DSLRs. Canons are very very smooth but not as fast. Ultimately, mirrorless AF will be better dslr. But not there on all models quite yet.

-

Thanks for the info. Just wanted to get an idea in case I decide to get a new camera.

Allan

The most obvious pro for mirrorless is size and weight. The Sony 6x00 series fits my hand perfectly and is really comfortable to walk with holding it by the grip with just my fingertips ( I do have a wristband/shoulder strap combo). I was on a photo tour and the leader was raving about the weight and balance of his Nikon DSL swinging it around on his fingertips (with no wrist strap). That's when I realized I do the same thing pretty much unconsciously with my Sony.

Vic

The most obvious pro for mirrorless is size and weight. The Sony 6x00 series fits my hand perfectly and is really comfortable to walk with holding it by the grip with just my fingertips ( I do have a wristband/shoulder strap combo). I was on a photo tour and the leader was raving about the weight and balance of his Nikon DSL swinging it around on his fingertips (with no wrist strap). That's when I realized I do the same thing pretty much unconsciously with my Sony.

 

Vic

Not sure if the OP is interested in the Sony 6X00 series - while they are nice cameras, they have an APS-C sensor and they are interested in full frame cameras.

Not sure if the OP is interested in the Sony 6X00 series - while they are nice cameras, they have an APS-C sensor and they are interested in full frame cameras.

While I have the 6x00 series the Sony 7ii is full frame and not too much bigger.

Vic

While I have the 6x00 series the Sony 7ii is full frame and not too much bigger.

 

Vic

It appears that when small size is not the principal design constraint, camera body size tends to converge toward a comfortable size for handholding.

Consider the Panasonic G9, Fujifilm XT-3, Sony A7 and Leica SL bodies. All are roughly the same size, despite the substantial differences in lens mount and sensor size [Micro 4/3 mount & sensor; X mount / APS-C; FE & L mounts / 'full frame').

Smaller sensors can make a smaller camera body practical (Olympus M10.2; Olympus Pen-F; Sony A6xx) but some folks will complain they are too small for their hands, or too small with 'pro' lenses.

I'd agree with Havoc, but TheOldBear makes a very good point.  I'm smaller, so I actually like the APS-C camera sizes like Sony's a6XXX series.  However, I also like the better quality lenses.  Those things are monstrous in size.  Honestly, a lot of them dwarf even the full sized body.  They're just ridiculous on an a6XXX sized body.  It basically negates the size advantage a lot in terms of ergonomics.

Conversely, again cuz I'm on the smaller size, I can feel the weight difference.  It might not be noticeable to a lot of people, but it's definitely noticeable to me.

Anyways, for full frame, between a DSLR and a mirrorless full frame, for my size, the body difference is still quite a big difference.  I never fully noticed quite how ridiculously large the Nikon D750 body was when I held it until I bought a Sony a7iii and compared them side by side.  I'm 5'7" and about 150 lbs just to give you an idea of how small I am.  Until manufacturers can beat down physics and make the nicer/faster lenses smaller, the size of the body for full frame mirrorless vs dslr isn't really that big a deal IMO.  Slap a f2.8 on there and the system is huge regardless. 

To me, mirrorless' main size advantage is in the APS-C area.  Get a Sony a6XXX with a compact travel lens.  That's some serious goodness.  If I had more funds, that's what I'd get for my travel camera.  Since I really can only afford one camera to do it all, I bought the full frame just for the max flexibility/image quality.

Thanks for all the info, you've given me lots to think about.

Allan

I went mirrorless several years ago. It was the NEX-5 and later the NEX-7 that shifted my attention to the small Sony form factor as an alternative to the traditionally large A700  as a second body companion to my A77 when traveling. I still used the A77 for anything that needed fast autofocus but increasingly, the smaller camera became the go-to since it gave up nothing on the image quality and a saved lot on weight and volume. When the A6000 arrived with its amazing autofocus and better IQ than the A77, the big body started staying on the shelf where it remained until I sold it last year. After a couple of years, the nex-7 gave way to an A6300 and the A6x00 pair of bodies served me well for two years after that. Recently I took the leap to full-frame with the remarkably small A7 III but will retain an APS-C body as a second camera. The Sony APS-C body is so small, I can carry it in a waist-pack with a complimentary lens attached to minimize lens swapping when out and about.

I have always said that the best camera for all situations is probably two cameras. 

If you're interested, here's a link to an article I wrote on my decision to go full frame after a decade of APS-C.

http://pptphoto.com/articles/road2full__frame.html

Good luck choosing. Having so many good choices lessens the fear of making a bad choice but drives you crazy choosing amongst all the good ones.

Dave

The EVF of mirrorless may give you a real-time preview of the ambient light, but you're still going to have to monitor your results if you're using flash.

22 hours ago, peety3 said:

The EVF of mirrorless may give you a real-time preview of the ambient light, but you're still going to have to monitor your results if you're using flash.

Correct, it doesn't preview flash. And honestly, even the ambient light WYSIWYG can be imprecise. At best, it's a general guideline -- you can easily see when your image is extremely over or underexposed. But you'll still want to chimp some images and the histogram for more precision.

What it comes down to:  With the EVF, you chimp less often, but it doesn't totally eliminate chimping.

But also -- you can chimp IN the viewfinder, making it faster to chimp, and easier in glaring light.

The advantages of mirrorless have evolved and changed dramatically:

5 years ago, early mirrorless adopters trumpeted the EVF and smaller size. For early adopters, those were the big differentiators with dSLRs. At the time, performance and autofocus systems trailed behind dSLRs.  In many cases -- trailed  behind significantly.

Now, as mirrorless cameras have gotten more serious, they have grown in size -- while dSLR manufacturers have largely shrunk dSLRs. There are still some size advantages to mirrorless, but they honestly aren't automatically huge advantages.  (The D850 is an especially large dSLR.. but mirrorless FF is only slightly smaller than the D750. Some lenses are a bit smaller, but many are just as big as the equivalent dSLR).

So size is still an advantage -- but a minor one. 

EVF -- eh, it's still an advantage in many ways while also being a disadvantage in some.  Some people love it, some hate it.

But as the technology progressed, mirrorless developed a long list of much more important advantages over dSLR:

- True silent shooting, even with the viewfinder

- AF coverage over the entire frame

- Performance faster than equivalent dSLRs, particularly faster burst shooting than equivalent dSLRs

-More "intelligent" and precise AF, including superior face detection, eye/pupil detection

-Superior image quality in certain circumstances due to: less shutter/mirror vibration, more precise AF (no micro adjustment required)

Still boggles my mind that I can take the Sony A9, shoot at 20 frames per second, in total silence, with ZERO viewfinder blackout, and perfectly track an eye ball with autofocus. 

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 8:47 AM, pierces said:

I went mirrorless several years ago. It was the NEX-5 and later the NEX-7 that shifted my attention to the small Sony form factor as an alternative to the traditionally large A700  as a second body companion to my A77 when traveling. I still used the A77 for anything that needed fast autofocus but increasingly, the smaller camera became the go-to since it gave up nothing on the image quality and a saved lot on weight and volume. When the A6000 arrived with its amazing autofocus and better IQ than the A77, the big body started staying on the shelf where it remained until I sold it last year. After a couple of years, the nex-7 gave way to an A6300 and the A6x00 pair of bodies served me well for two years after that. Recently I took the leap to full-frame with the remarkably small A7 III but will retain an APS-C body as a second camera. The Sony APS-C body is so small, I can carry it in a waist-pack with a complimentary lens attached to minimize lens swapping when out and about.

 

I have always said that the best camera for all situations is probably two cameras. 

 

If you're interested, here's a link to an article I wrote on my decision to go full frame after a decade of APS-C.

 

http://pptphoto.com/articles/road2full__frame.html

 

Good luck choosing. Having so many good choices lessens the fear of making a bad choice but drives you crazy choosing amongst all the good ones.

 

Dave

Dave -- I read your article and enjoyed it very much.  A quick question -- In your opinion, is there a difference between an "enthusiast" and a "hobbyist"?  I'm trying to decide which one I am . . .

1 hour ago, billandsue said:

Dave -- I read your article and enjoyed it very much.  A quick question -- In your opinion, is there a difference between an "enthusiast" and a "hobbyist"?  I'm trying to decide which one I am . . .

I haven't really been asked that before. It's a good question, but the answer probably covers a lot of grey area.

Here's my stab at it:

A Hobbyist has a solid collection of necessary equipment with a good knowledge of the photographic basics and at least a handle on the more advanced aspects of post-processing. Camera equipment travels with them on trips, both local jaunts and planned vacations. New gear is picked up as needed when skill or situation demands.

An Enthusiast generally leans toward more advanced equipment, though not necessarily "better" than a Hobbyist. After all, personal budget varies widely. The Enthusiast leans that way because they tend to push the limits of their equipment. Similar increased attention is given to post-processing with a fair investment in hardware, software and time spent on the process. Local trips and vacations are often planned specifically around photography and equipment may be purchased or rented based on the results of research about the destinations.

If you read between the lines, I guess my answer is to ask yourself, "how Enthusiastic a Hobbyist am I?" and continue to enjoy your photography...whatever the answer is. There isn't a hard line to draw. Most Enthusiasts I know could be accomplished pros if they decided to monetize their skills and I've dealt with " Pros" that are little more than paid Hobbyists. I know casual Hobbyists that have to stop and think which end of the camera to point at the subject and some who know vastly more about the tech than I do. They all take pictures and enjoy doing it. Most, do it enthusiastically.

I'm case you're wondering, I consider myself an "Enthusiast" because I really am enthusiastic about my favorite hobby. Your mileage may vary.🙂

Dave

I don't think I understand your distinction between enthusiast and hobbyist, lol.

Really, IMO, the enthusiast/hobbyist just covers a huge range between rank amateur and professional.

Meanwhile -- yes, there are many enthusiasts/hobbyists with better skills, talent, even better gear, than many professionals.

But I explain it this way when I teach my enthusiast photography class:  You can have an enthusiast home cook, who can cook specific dishes at a level matching or exceeding professional cooks.

But being a professional chef takes far more than the ability to cook.

Same with photography: An advanced enthusiasts can produce final photographs as good as any professional. But they don't typically have the business skills of the professional, the marketing skills, etc.

Shooting a breath taking portrait is one thing:  Shooting hundreds of portraits and quickly turning them around back to the client, that's another thing. Delivering to an editor on a deadline. Networking with other pros. Expanding your social media presence. Dealing with legal contracts, tax issues. There are a lot of things that go into being a successful pro that have nothing to do with "pure photography."

For this reason, it's sometimes advanced enthusiasts who spend more on advanced gear than pros. Give most pros a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, they know how to use those 2 lenses to get almost every photo their clients may need. (for most types of photography.... wildlife would need longer,  some types of photography need wider). It's enthusiasts who are more likely to obsess over the most perfect bokeh with a 105/1.4 lens, etc. Pros have a better understanding of what clients actually care about. It's the enthusiast who wants the newest camera with the newest features. The pro knows that they can continue to deliver professional work with their 4-year-old workhorse camera. 

In fact, Sony's A9 has struggled with the targeted professional market for just that reason: It's certainly capable of professional sports shooting. It offers features and capabilities that you can't get in any other camera. But if you're a pro spots shooter with your Canon 1Dxii or Nikon D5.. you already have everything you actually need to do your job. There is simply no *need* to spend thousands of dollars changing systems. But an enthusiast/hobbyist isn't just focused on "need".. they are more focused on the "want" and the "fun" of photography.

So I'd propose this classification:

-Picture taker: Someone who just enjoys taking snapshots, probably with their smart phone, maybe with a "real" camera.

-Amatuer/beginner: Take some interest in photography. Enough to give thought to composition, maybe do some basic editing, probably buy a dSLR/mirrorless. Mostly shooting in automatic modes. Editing is generally filters and cropping, nothing too advanced. This person may be happy being an "amaetuer/beinner" forever, or it may be a stepping stone to more.

-Enthusiast/Hobbyist: Someone who has started to take their interest in photography to a further level. Ready to invest some money in upgrading gear, ready to invest time in learning about photography. This covers a huge range: This includes people who have invested in a 50/1.8 lens and have read "Photography for Dummies"... and this covers people who have spent thousands on gear, have studied photography intensely, and can now shoot at the highest level. So we may want to break it further between a Basic Enthusiast/Advanced Enthusiast

-Professional:  Not necessarily "higher" than the enthusiast in photography skill. But utilizes other skills, besides photography, to monetize.

Dave and Havoc315 -- Many thanks to both of you for your thoughtful comments.  After reading them and thinking about them, I decided I am both an enthusiast and a hobbyist.  I have a few friends who thought they could make a decent living as professionals doing weddings, senior portraits, families, children, etc., only to hang it up after a few years for a number of reasons.  I'm content to post photos on Flickr, enter a few local competitions, give canvas prints to friends and family members, and travel to places with great photo opportunities -- Greek Isles coming up next summer with a 4-hour photo excursion in Santorini.