Recognizing they probably aren't the best tool for serious nature photography, I find the new breed of mirrorless cameras such as the Canon EOS-M interesting nonetheless. I've always preferred smaller cameras such as the Canon G-series for general lugging around, but was never as satisfied with the final results as much as a DSLR.
If anyone here has gone mirrorless, please share your thoughts!
I purchased the Nikon V1 in September as a "gift" for my wife (yea right!). It was great to have another camera on our honeymoon - especially one small and compact that she could carry around and that I could attach my lenses on (with the adapter). Quality has been great and I recently took photos at a party indoors at ISO 3200 with useable results (something I could never do with my D300s).
It certainly has not and will not replace my DSLR... there are just too many features on a DSLR and not enough great lenses for the Nikon V1 but I can see it being used more and more often
I haven't, but I know some people who have - mostly with Sony NEX or Oly or Panasonic m4/3. IMO, if you get one of the better bodies, the only significant things you give up are advanced auto-focus for tracking moving things, and lens availability.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on March 2, 2013 at 11:55 AM
I like the old school mirrorless cameras. None of my large format cameras have mirrors.
I have the Panasonic Lumix GH-3 (m4/3), and am enjoying it very much. (The photo was taken in lower light at 600mm, f5.6, ISO 1000) Image quality suits me and the controls are nicely placed, which makes using it pretty intuitive. I traded all the heavier stuff of my DSLR system to purchase it along with the two telephoto lenses (70-200 and 300-600 equivalent). It does have auto focus tracking; I've been able to get shots that I still can't with the DSLR (Nikon D700). But I'll still use my DSLR for all the macro stuff. Hope this helps a little.
P.S. Also has video capability, supposedly high quality, but I have yet to try it.
Not yet; heavy on the yet.
I checked out the Olympus OM-D EM5 but found it too small.
I'm waiting to see how the system develops.
I'm hearing many of the same arguments, regarding the new implementaion of technology, as I heard (used) when digital first appeared. The first thing people look at are the deficiencies in the system; then they learn how to use it. In 20 years, when our current cameras are in museums, visitors are going to laugh and say "people actually carried THAT around."
Thanks to all for sharing! If I were to do this, I would go with the Canon so I can use my small collection of L-glass with the adpater (the glass is still what it's all about!).
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM
Can't you use just about any lens with an adapter? I'm looking forward to using Contax & Leica lenses from the 1930s, or lenses even older than that on a mirrorless.
Kent in SD
Posted by Jim Sabiston on March 2, 2013 at 5:45 PM
I've picked up a Fujifilm X-Pro1 and am loving it. The image quality is outstanding but I'd say my Canon 5D MkII still has a bit of an edge on it in total image quality, especially for larger prints. The differences are becoming vanishingly small, though.
I tried a 'forced' experiment for myself last week and left my heavy Canon gear home. I packed my Gitzo traveler tripod, the X-Pro1, two lenses and a small handful of filters and that was it. What a pleasure to travel so light and basic. A week's worth of clothes and my camera gear fit in an 18L backpack and a very small hip pack/shoulderbag.
The main shortcoming at the moment is lens selection, especially telephoto, but that will likely improve over time. I'm so taken with the advantages that I find myself giving the new Leica M 24mp full frame a serious look as being my primary camera in the future.
I have the Sony NEX5. I use it for backpacking when photography is not the main purpose, and to keep handy around the house and carry when driving back and forth to town. It's light and quick and I have the 28-200 lens. My husband grabs it for shots of wildlife around the house when I am at work.
I like it a lot. Cannot remember right off hand how big I have made prints. 11x14 is one that did well and I sold some of those of cow moose and calf. I have to process the RAWs completely differently than my 5d mkii and that has been a learning curve.
No matter how good they get, seeing an LCD in a viewfinder instead of actuallyseeing on ground glass what the lens sees will NEVER be as good for me. I'll stay with DSLR until they stop making them, which if I live long enough surely will happen.
JR
Posted by Keith Bauer on March 2, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Jim: I'm assuming you know that Canon Rumors says that an updated version of the EOS-M is in the works. No dates, but something is on the horizon..... whenever that may be.
Cameras have mirrors? I've never owned a camera with mirrors! I'm shooting primarily landscapes and some wildlife photos with a Sony DSC-R1 that is 8 years old and still creates some "serious" photos. It has an APS-C sensor and a very crisp Zeiss zoom lens so I get good resolution and excellent clarity. The contrast focusing is slow but dead on accurate every time which is great for landscapes, not so much for wildlife. My total hardware expenditure (including tripod equipment, filters, camera bags, batteries, memory & misc. accessories) is less than $2,000. I'm an amateur photographer with a full time job but in that 8 years I've sold over 800 prints (including quite a few panoramas as large as 12" high by over 6 ft. long and a few DuraPlaq'd prints as large as 24" x 46") so the camera has payed for itself many times over. The latest advances in dynamic range capability and resolution are driving me to consider a DSLR but I would probably go with a Sony SLT (which is not mirrorless) because I am completely hooked on real time live view and a multi-articulated viewer (like my R1). So can there be serious photography without mirrors? I'm probably part of a very small but growing minority that would say it's absolutely possible.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on March 3, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Keith, I finally got tired of waiting for Canon to bring something to the mirrorless market, hence my purchase of the X-Pro1. When they finally did bring something out - the EOS M, it was a long way away from what I was looking for. The X-Pro1 is a much better option for a general purpose shooter for me. The only thing it isn't much good for is wildlife work, but that was never my main gig anyway and I still have the 5DMkII et al for that when needed. The combination of full frame and 20+mp resolution is what I'm looking for. Sony seems to be really on the make on that front with the RX1, but I don't want to go over to Sony equipment unless there is really no other choice and th eRX1 is just a first shot anyway.
The Leica M is really intriguing in that it has impeccable build quality. The tele lens choices are nearly as limited as for the X-Pro1, but the non tele options are very broad. I do hesitate a bit on the fully manual focus aspect and would like to try that before committing...and lets not ignore the real elephant in the room: the price! (ouch!)
Once the Leica M's start arriving in the stores and the reviews start filtering I'll have a better idea of what I will do. The main thing is that the advantages of the smaller camera package are obvious and the sacrifices in image quality are gradually disappearing. As an aside - I grew up during the hey-day of photojournalism and rangefinder style cameras were the source of most of those iconic images. I will readily confess that using the X-Pro1 brings some of the flavor of that experience back to me and, given the broad subject matter of my photography the gear does suit it. Even gear selection can get a bit emotional!
Another aside for yo ugear junkies: I've been perusing ebay recently and 'old' Leica film camera bodies can be had for a relative song and some of the glass is not too expensive either. Worth considering if film work still interests you and you had ever lusted over this classic equipment.
I went through a couple of camera buying decisions this year and looked hard at mirrorless. I'm an old geezer and would really like a lighter weight camera for backpacking and hiking. What I ended up doing is a 6D with two smaller primes. If there are some decent full frame options in the future I will jump on it.
Deep shock and horror Jim, gone all avian on it and mirrorless with a NEX-7 and Canon FD 300 F/2.8L, 500 F/4.5L and 800 F/5.6L. Not the ideal macro lenses mate Used with adaptors and all manual focus of course, loving it..
Discussion
19 repliesIf anyone here has gone mirrorless, please share your thoughts!
It certainly has not and will not replace my DSLR... there are just too many features on a DSLR and not enough great lenses for the Nikon V1 but I can see it being used more and more often
A man after my own heart!
--P
Kent in SD
P.S. Also has video capability, supposedly high quality, but I have yet to try it.
I checked out the Olympus OM-D EM5 but found it too small.
I'm waiting to see how the system develops.
I'm hearing many of the same arguments, regarding the new implementaion of technology, as I heard (used) when digital first appeared. The first thing people look at are the deficiencies in the system; then they learn how to use it. In 20 years, when our current cameras are in museums, visitors are going to laugh and say "people actually carried THAT around."
Change is constant.
I'm hoping for improvement.
Kent in SD
I tried a 'forced' experiment for myself last week and left my heavy Canon gear home. I packed my Gitzo traveler tripod, the X-Pro1, two lenses and a small handful of filters and that was it. What a pleasure to travel so light and basic. A week's worth of clothes and my camera gear fit in an 18L backpack and a very small hip pack/shoulderbag.
The main shortcoming at the moment is lens selection, especially telephoto, but that will likely improve over time. I'm so taken with the advantages that I find myself giving the new Leica M 24mp full frame a serious look as being my primary camera in the future.
I like it a lot. Cannot remember right off hand how big I have made prints. 11x14 is one that did well and I sold some of those of cow moose and calf. I have to process the RAWs completely differently than my 5d mkii and that has been a learning curve.
JR
The Leica M is really intriguing in that it has impeccable build quality. The tele lens choices are nearly as limited as for the X-Pro1, but the non tele options are very broad. I do hesitate a bit on the fully manual focus aspect and would like to try that before committing...and lets not ignore the real elephant in the room: the price! (ouch!)
Once the Leica M's start arriving in the stores and the reviews start filtering I'll have a better idea of what I will do. The main thing is that the advantages of the smaller camera package are obvious and the sacrifices in image quality are gradually disappearing. As an aside - I grew up during the hey-day of photojournalism and rangefinder style cameras were the source of most of those iconic images. I will readily confess that using the X-Pro1 brings some of the flavor of that experience back to me and, given the broad subject matter of my photography the gear does suit it. Even gear selection can get a bit emotional!
Another aside for yo ugear junkies: I've been perusing ebay recently and 'old' Leica film camera bodies can be had for a relative song and some of the glass is not too expensive either. Worth considering if film work still interests you and you had ever lusted over this classic equipment.
All the best up your way you two
Danny
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
--P