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?

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.

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

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.

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'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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

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.

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.

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~[http://www.freeskiers.net/community/...ilies/fish.gif&http://www.freeskiers.net/community/...lies/ghost.gif]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freak

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.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU

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.

Thanks for the feedback, guys (and gal) - although now I'm even less certain what to get :eek:

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...

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....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spindrift

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonnie

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 :redface:)- at some point I began using mirrorless and m4/3 interchangeably. But yes, I think APS-C sized options are the most intriguing.

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/

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geomorph

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!

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.

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.

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:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...uth-Africa-TR)

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.

Take my opinion with a grain of salt - two years later I've gotten a good amount of shots that I like, but I'm still a noob. Photography does not come naturally to me whatsoever. A skilled photog could likely match or surpass some of my best work using an iPhone.

The camera comes with me on nearly every tour, but it's probably 50/50 on whether I take it out. If I was carrying a full size DSLR, I think I'd be more discerning on whether or not to bring the camera. With the mirrorless I don't hem and haw, just throw it in the pack.

If you get a deal on Sony I think a mirrorless setup is a no brainer. The Sony stuff seems to be the most well-liked system in the game right now (certainly the most popular). In my crew there's 3 Sonys, no other Fujis besides mine, and zero DSLRs. We're just a bunch of non-pro millenials though so WTF do we know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by east or bust

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.

---

If you need a pocketable PnS to tide you over, I have a Canon S90 avail for $75 + ship.

I got into m4/3 with an Olympus E-M10, I now have (2) E-M10's an E-M1 MKII, (10) m4/3 lenses and (5) adapted lenses. I have no regrets. When I mountain bike ride I always carry (2) bodies and (2-4) lenses. M4/3 lenses and bodies are also almost always cheaper than the larger sensors.

I picked up a Sony a6300 about a month ago. I've just been using the 16-50 kit lens but getting good photos. Going to try it out for action this weekend on a MTB trip. I had read some reviews that the controls sucked and weren't intuitive, but since I don't have anything to compare it to, it hasn't been that bad.

Autofocus seems really fast and accurate, my one complaint is that start up time is sometimes slow.

Batteries are too small for use in the cold....goodluck....wait for the a9 batteries to propogate outward....

I'm in the process of switching over right now to Fuji and have owned the Sony a7 in addition to some mirrors; canon 6d, Sony slt, and some canon crop bodies over the years. I honestly can't see a reason not to switch to mirrorless if you're not vested in a system.

If crop I have a preference for Fuji at the moment. Full frame is Sony a7 stuff.

You can find a used Fuji x t10 or x t1 if you need weather sealing for peanuts right now. That's what I'd do.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I'm trying and trying to talk myself into the Sony A6500 for full-time use, but their lens lineup sucks right now and they haven't released a new APS-C lens in a few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

I'm trying and trying to talk myself into the Sony A6500 for full-time use, but their lens lineup sucks right now and they haven't released a new APS-C lens in a few years.

---

Fuji is full of good apsc lenses, I'll give em that.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Lens options is probably the biggest reason I went X-T20 over the A6300. The 18-55 2.8-4 "kit" lens kicks ass.

How come people talk down about the mirrorless in re: action/sport photography still?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grskier

How come people talk down about the mirrorless in re: action/sport photography still?

---

Compared to where the focus systems were just 5 or 7 years ago there's no reason a good mirrorless wouldn't be fine a lot of the time. My opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

Lens options is probably the biggest reason I went X-T20 over the A6300. The 18-55 2.8-4 "kit" lens kicks ass.

---

Yeah, but I need more range for a main lens... something like the Canon 18-135 STM that doesn't cost a fortune. That's the biggest gap for me.

Yeah, the Fuji 18-135 is just a *bit* more than the Canon version for sure.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Yeah....I get a decent deal on Fuji and that lens is still $650 new. And I doubt it's any better than a canon. That's honestly a hang up. That and the super wide offering is expensive too.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I now have the Sony A7Rii and the A6300 and will never go back to a DSLR. Been extremely happy with both. Here's some shots I took at the Pikes Peak Hill Climb with the A6000 and the 70-200 f4. Just note that the photos are heavily cropped. This was my first time really using the camera and we were at the fastest section of the course where cars were hitting around 140-150 mph if I remember correctly:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/757016...57655260491632