What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 3727 times.

Stu Pitt

I understand the allure to cropped sensor mirrorless cameras. My cousin bought a Fujifilm I think XT-100 (he got it on a discontinued special, so probably the previous model) for a small walk-around camera vs his full frame Nikon. The combination of size, IQ and what he paid for it is outstanding. Very good IQ regardless of price.

But the full frame mirrorless cameras I’ve seen are a different animal altogether.

I was playing around with camera stuff in Best Buy while waiting for Apple to change my iPhone battery. I played around with the new Canon EOS R. There was what I think was an actual Canon rep there that I had a nice chat with. But here’s my thing - it’s really not much smaller nor lighter than the 6D II that was next to it. I held both of them up together as much as I could with the anti-theft stuff on them. Weight wasn’t exactly apples to apples because of the different lenses - the 24-105 L on the 6D2 and the new 24-105 on the EOS R.

The rep said he’s personally found the IQ on the EOS R to be about equal to the 5D4 in daylight, but the EOS R does appreciably better in low light. He was saying “forget about specs and everything else, I’m talking about the pictures I took and printed; real-world test.” I can respect that.

But here’s my question... is it hypothetically better because it’s mirrorless, or is it better because it’s newer? Ie if they took all the internals, added a mirror, and called it the 5D5, would it still be the same printed IQ? Would it be better or worse? I know, at this level of equipment it’s the shooter and not the camera, but for someone who genuinely knows what they’re doing, and all things being equal (solely a mirror vs no mirror), is mirrorless anything special?

Yes the EOS R is a bit smaller and lighter than the 5D4. But holding both in my hand, I wouldn’t sell off the 5D4 for the EOS R simply for that purpose. Yes the EOS R has some new bells and whistles when it comes to ergonomics and use, but I don’t think those are anything that theoretically couldn’t be on the 5D5 whenever that comes out.

Why mirrorless? Other than what I consider compact cameras like my cousin’s Fujifilm , what am I missing?

Side note: I HATE the electronic viewfinder. The rep and both Best Buy camera employees said the same thing - they’d rather have an actual view rather than the simulated view. The rep said he’s slowly getting used to it, but it’s not his favorite thing by any means. I appreciate getting the depth of field and exposure from it pretty much instantly, but not enough to ever want it. My cameras have the depth of field preview button near the lens for this purpose. Seems sufficient to me.

Samoyed

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 360
Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #1 on: 9 Jan 2019, 09:46 pm »
I was an avid photographer from about 1958 until 2010 or so. My first camera, an Agfa, was a rangefinder. Soon, I had a succession of Japanese slrs. Finally, I picked up a Leica (pre-digital) and remembered why I loved rangefinders. All that mechanical madness on pressing the shutter simply didn’t exist. Click....

Sadly, one’s vices fall away one by one. 😿

SET Man

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #2 on: 9 Jan 2019, 10:57 pm »
Hey!

    Well, I was skeptical at first about mirrorless cameras. I started in photography back in the early '90s with film SLR, Minolta 7xi. And I have amassed A-mount lenses over the years. Sony bought out Minolta photography department a little over 10 years ago, so naturally I got Sony APS-C DSLR so I can use my A-mount lenses.

     Skip forward a few years when Sony released full-frame A7 series mirrorless cameras. I wasn't sold at first. But one of my friend got the A7rII and I played around with it felt pretty good. At that point I was using Sony APS-C DSLR the A700. I was ready to upgrade to full-frame and since Sony make adapters for my old A-mount lenses so I can use them with their mirroless cameras it was time. So, I bought a used Sony A7II back in 2015, thought that if I don't like it I just sell it. And you know what at first it was weird using the EVF but I got used to it quickly. The resolution of the A7II's EFV was much improved over the older models. And like my old Sony DSLR, the A7II also have in-body sensor stabilizer.

   Anyway, what's the allure of FF mirrorless camera? Well, from my personal experience moving from Sony DSLR to Sony mirrorless...

1. Smaller body size
2. No reflex mirror inside the body that flip up and down to shake the camera.
3. I can put almost any lenses on my A7II from old Minolta AF, Minolta MC/MD and Leica M lenses on it with adapters. I actually can use my late '50s vintage Leica M 50mm Summicron and two other Leica M lenses I have on it with a $12 adapter.
4. Perfect focus. Unlike DSLR where they use separated AF system, the mirroless use on sensor AF system and at least with Sony there's a "peaking" feature where I can magnify the image on EVF and adjust the focus manually until it is perfectly in focus on the sensor. 
5. THIS IS THE BIG ONE for me. To be able to adjust the exposure and SEE the result on the EVF before I take that photo!

    Number 3, 4 and 5 really sold me. I didn't know what I got into when I got the A7II. I got it used so if I didn't like it I would just sell it. But after I used it for a while even with my A-mount lenses left over from film era and others I didn't feel that I missed DSLR at all.

    Anyway, will I buy DSLR again? Honestly probably not. But I hope that Sony will continue to make A-mount to E-mount adapter so I can use my old A-mount lenses on future Sony FF mirrorless cameras. I am happy with my Sony A7II right now, but I must say the new A7III is one hell of a camera for the price. But not enough for me to replace my A7II yet.

  My digital kit that I usually take with me ...

   Sony A7II
   Sony 24-70mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss T* A-mount
   Sony 70-200mm f2.8 G SSM A-mount
   Sony LAEA3 A-mount to E-mount adapter.

    My Sony 24-70mm f2.8 stay on the camera most of the time.

   Anyway, that's my personal experience with mirrorless camera, Sony in my case and this work for me but might not work for others. I can't say about the new Canon R or Nikon Z since I've never use them.

Take care,
Buddy

john1970

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 785
Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #3 on: 9 Jan 2019, 11:35 pm »
Another advantage of the mirrorless system is the ability to see the histogram in the EVF without having to take your eye out of the viewfinder.  This allows one to frame the subject and adjust exposure without taking their eye off the subject.  IMO this is one of the best advantages. 

charmerci

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #4 on: 10 Jan 2019, 01:37 am »
The noise. I really don't like the noise. It brings attention to the photographer in street shots.

Stu Pitt

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #5 on: 10 Jan 2019, 02:14 am »
All interesting points. And I honestly didn’t know or think about any of them. Now it all makes sense. I knew there had to be more to it than just what I think is a negligibly smaller and lighter body.

I just bought my first full frame DSLR not even 2 weeks ago, so I’m not going to make the change for quite some time.

Stu Pitt

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #6 on: 10 Jan 2019, 02:16 am »
The noise. I really don't like the noise. It brings attention to the photographer in street shots.

You’re talking about mirror/shutter noise, not noise in the image itself, right?

Stu Pitt

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #7 on: 10 Jan 2019, 02:19 am »
Another advantage of the mirrorless system is the ability to see the histogram in the EVF without having to take your eye out of the viewfinder.  This allows one to frame the subject and adjust exposure without taking their eye off the subject.  IMO this is one of the best advantages.
That’s really cool. I’d probably like that feature more than any other feature. So long as it didn’t get in my way too much.

charmerci

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #8 on: 10 Jan 2019, 02:39 am »
You’re talking about mirror/shutter noise, not noise in the image itself, right?


Yes. I'm a bit self-conscious..... Yes, and also the light weight. Years ago, I had a Nikon FM and sold it for a better F2A (both manual film cameras). But it was SO much heavier, I sold it and bought another FM.

Stu Pitt

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #9 on: 10 Jan 2019, 02:46 am »
Hey!

    Well, I was skeptical at first about mirrorless cameras. I started in photography back in the early '90s with film SLR, Minolta 7xi. And I have amassed A-mount lenses over the years. Sony bought out Minolta photography department a little over 10 years ago, so naturally I got Sony APS-C DSLR so I can use my A-mount lenses.

     Skip forward a few years when Sony released full-frame A7 series mirrorless cameras. I wasn't sold at first. But one of my friend got the A7rII and I played around with it felt pretty good. At that point I was using Sony APS-C DSLR the A700. I was ready to upgrade to full-frame and since Sony make adapters for my old A-mount lenses so I can use them with their mirroless cameras it was time. So, I bought a used Sony A7II back in 2015, thought that if I don't like it I just sell it. And you know what at first it was weird using the EVF but I got used to it quickly. The resolution of the A7II's EFV was much improved over the older models. And like my old Sony DSLR, the A7II also have in-body sensor stabilizer.

   Anyway, what's the allure of FF mirrorless camera? Well, from my personal experience moving from Sony DSLR to Sony mirrorless...

1. Smaller body size
2. No reflex mirror inside the body that flip up and down to shake the camera.
3. I can put almost any lenses on my A7II from old Minolta AF, Minolta MC/MD and Leica M lenses on it with adapters. I actually can use my late '50s vintage Leica M 50mm Summicron and two other Leica M lenses I have on it with a $12 adapter.
4. Perfect focus. Unlike DSLR where they use separated AF system, the mirroless use on sensor AF system and at least with Sony there's a "peaking" feature where I can magnify the image on EVF and adjust the focus manually until it is perfectly in focus on the sensor. 
5. THIS IS THE BIG ONE for me. To be able to adjust the exposure and SEE the result on the EVF before I take that photo!

    Number 3, 4 and 5 really sold me. I didn't know what I got into when I got the A7II. I got it used so if I didn't like it I would just sell it. But after I used it for a while even with my A-mount lenses left over from film era and others I didn't feel that I missed DSLR at all.

    Anyway, will I buy DSLR again? Honestly probably not. But I hope that Sony will continue to make A-mount to E-mount adapter so I can use my old A-mount lenses on future Sony FF mirrorless cameras. I am happy with my Sony A7II right now, but I must say the new A7III is one hell of a camera for the price. But not enough for me to replace my A7II yet.

  My digital kit that I usually take with me ...

   Sony A7II
   Sony 24-70mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss T* A-mount
   Sony 70-200mm f2.8 G SSM A-mount
   Sony LAEA3 A-mount to E-mount adapter.

    My Sony 24-70mm f2.8 stay on the camera most of the time.

   Anyway, that's my personal experience with mirrorless camera, Sony in my case and this work for me but might not work for others. I can't say about the new Canon R or Nikon Z since I've never use them.

Take care,
Buddy

I forgot Sony bought Minolta. My father and grandfather had a few Minolta SLRs when I was growing up. They loved them.

I wonder if Sony cameras are still basically rebadged Minoltas, or if Sony pushed out the Minolta engineering crew?

Edit: a little Wikipedia-Fu lead me to this, answering my question...
“Originally, in the negotiations, Konica Minolta wanted a cooperation with Sony in camera equipment production rather than a sell-out deal, but Sony vehemently refused, saying that it would either acquire everything or leave everything that had to do with the camera equipment sector of KM. Subsequently, Konica Minolta withdrew from the photo business on September 30, 2006. Three thousand seven hundred employees were laid off.”

I guess Sony immediately picked up where Minolta left off, seemingly without much or any input from the former Minolta people.

SET Man

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #10 on: 10 Jan 2019, 03:33 am »
I forgot Sony bought Minolta. My father and grandfather had a few Minolta SLRs when I was growing up. They loved them.

I wonder if Sony cameras are still basically rebadged Minoltas, or if Sony pushed out the Minolta engineering crew?

Edit: a little Wikipedia-Fu lead me to this, answering my question...
“Originally, in the negotiations, Konica Minolta wanted a cooperation with Sony in camera equipment production rather than a sell-out deal, but Sony vehemently refused, saying that it would either acquire everything or leave everything that had to do with the camera equipment sector of KM. Subsequently, Konica Minolta withdrew from the photo business on September 30, 2006. Three thousand seven hundred employees were laid off.”

I guess Sony immediately picked up where Minolta left off, seemingly without much or any input from the former Minolta people.

Hey!

    Like your father and grandfather, I was a fan of Minolta even though their stuffs are a bit quirky sometime. And they never push hard into pro market. Even though I started out with their AF SLR the 7xi of which I still have plus 3 more later model the 7. Over the year I also picked up their older manual SLR, SRT 101, 102, and XD11. And I have to say that one of my favorite and one of the most joyful film camera to use is Minolta SRT 101.

    Yes, Sony bought out Minolta photo department back in 2006. It was a sad day for me. But luckily Sony took that really ran with it. Actually Sony inherited many of Minolta photography know how and technology like the in-body sensor stabilizer and also their G line lenses. My 70-200mm f2.8 G is actually the same as the one sold under Minolta branded one just before Sony took over. I still believe there are some old Minolta's photography engineers team behind Sony camera department today.

    And yes, Sony's first DSLR were pretty based on previous Minolta's DSLR. But Sony really took off after that and now especially with their full frame mirrorless. But still as a former Minolta user I can still see some trace of Minolta in Sony's cameras today. Look at current Sony A7 series camera and I can still see a bit of Minolta Maxxum 7000 from 1985.

Take care,
Buddy

Jon L

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #11 on: 10 Jan 2019, 04:31 am »

Yes the EOS R is a bit smaller and lighter than the 5D4. But holding both in my hand, I wouldn’t sell off the 5D4 for the EOS R simply for that purpose.

What's a crying shame is how mirrorless full frame cameras have been growing in size and weight, which is why I will stick with my Sony A7R full frame mirrorless and not "upgrade" to more recent versions which are quite a bit larger and heavier. 

There is a HUGE difference in size and weight between my Canon 5D III and Sony A7R working rigs with decent working lens and speedlight, even more so if no speedlight is required.  As far as supposed improved IQ with newer versions,  frankly, camera systems have mostly outpaced our photography skills looong ago IMO.

5DIII vs. A7r by drjlo1, on Flickr

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 19926
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #12 on: 10 Jan 2019, 10:50 am »
There is only one small marginal quality in color, however the lack of the mirror makes the sensor receive light all the time resulting in shorter life and cause dust accumulation.

SET Man

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #13 on: 16 Jan 2019, 01:03 am »
There is only one small marginal quality in color, however the lack of the mirror makes the sensor receive light all the time resulting in shorter life and cause dust accumulation.

Hey!

   The dust accumulation is a valid downside of mirrorless cameras since there's no shutter in front of the sensor. I guess if you are off to dusty places that could be a problem if you are not careful. But so far I've notice a UFO on photo only once with my Sony A7II since I bought it in 2015. And before that I have noticed UFO photo with DSLR also but only once or twice.

    I'm very careful when changing lens. And always check my cameras before I take it out, especially on a trip. And I have one of this and it completely solved the dust problem on sensor for me so far...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/318545-REG/Giottos_AA1910_Rocket_Air_Blower.html?sts=pi

    Just turn your camera upside down and blow the air into the camera. Believe it or not I've never have to clean my sensor of my digital cameras before.

   As for shorter life span of sensor in mirrorless cameras due to it always expose to light? I'm not worry about it. It is likely I'll be changing camera long before the sensor degraded to the point that is visible in the pictures.

Take care
Buddy

Stu Pitt

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #14 on: 16 Jan 2019, 03:33 am »
I almost bought one of those. I had it in my B&H cart, then I saw my then-3 month old’s nose suction bulb thing and asked my wife how much they cost. I bought one of those the next time I went to the store. It was a dollar or two.

Edit: I forgot to quote your last post, Buddy. I bought the baby nose suction thing instead of the Rocket Air Blower you linked to.

Stu Pitt

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #15 on: 15 Feb 2019, 02:44 am »
Just saw earlier today Canon is releasing a smaller and cheaper full frame mirrorless, the EOS RP. $1299 MSRP. Seems quite interesting and I was starting to regret my 6D purchase a little over a month ago. But then I heard about the battery choice, the same one used in the Rebel line. Specs claim about 250 shots on a full charge, according to one preliminary hands-on review. There’s an $80 or $90 “grip” that Canon is bundling in for free at its release. From the looks of it, I don’t think it’s a battery grip and it doesn’t appear to have controls on it to use in portrait mode like what I consider a true batter grip.

I guess carrying about 6-8 batteries would give me a full day. I shoot over 300 a game during my daughter’s basketball games. She’s going to start tournaments soon enough where she’ll be playing 3-5 games in a single day. Then there will be misc shots and reviewing. Changing batteries that often will get really old really fast.

I hate to be that crotchety nick-picky guy, but honestly, that’s a dealbreaker for me. I was about to call my cousin who’s getting ready to buy a 6D after playing with mine (he’s still shooting with a 30D) and ask him if he wants to buy mine. I’m pretty sure he’d give me what I paid for it. Once I saw the battery spec and figured out the grip isn’t a battery grip, I’m out. Pretty stupid decision to not use the LP-E6N the DSLRs use or something comparable. A $1300 camera that has a battery life of 250 shots seems inherently wrong to me. Crotchety rant over.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459282-REG/canon_eos_rp_mirrorless_digital.html

Audiovista

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 1083
    • Vista-Audio
Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #16 on: 15 Feb 2019, 03:21 pm »
Great topic and very timely for me. Sony intrigues me a lot.

A reliability was mentioned, and CCD's failing over time. I wonder if there are any specs to that effect? High end SLR's came with estimated shutter count, but this was due to mechanical stresses. DSLR's have less mechanical parts, and mirrorless cameras even less. Are there any specs for the latest gear? Mirrorless cameras should be more resistant to mechanical stress, no?

Stu Pitt

Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #17 on: 15 Feb 2019, 04:17 pm »
Great topic and very timely for me. Sony intrigues me a lot.

A reliability was mentioned, and CCD's failing over time. I wonder if there are any specs to that effect? High end SLR's came with estimated shutter count, but this was due to mechanical stresses. DSLR's have less mechanical parts, and mirrorless cameras even less. Are there any specs for the latest gear? Mirrorless cameras should be more resistant to mechanical stress, no?

Very good questions. I don't know the other brands, so I can't say what they publish and don't. Canon publishes expected shutter counts on some of their DSLRs. I've seen them published on ones I've owned and a few others, but I can't say they definitely publish it for every DSLR they make.

Mirrorless should have less moving parts, but I'm sure they'd have to have their own inherent problems too.

That said, the only DSLR I've owned for any length of time - the Canon 40D - hasn't had a failure. Pretty sure I'm well over the 100k spec. All my camera relatives and friends haven't had a failure either, and they've been over their quoted specs. Except 1 cousin - he went over double the quoted spec. He told us and we chuckled a bit. I said "I guess they really do go bad at some point. His DSLR was able to be fixed and it would've been cheap enough, but he wanted a new on anyway so he didn't have it fixed.

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 19926
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #18 on: 15 Feb 2019, 04:37 pm »
Great topic and very timely for me. Sony intrigues me a lot.

A reliability was mentioned, and CCD's failing over time. I wonder if there are any specs to that effect? High end SLR's came with estimated shutter count, but this was due to mechanical stresses. DSLR's have less mechanical parts, and mirrorless cameras even less. Are there any specs for the latest gear? Mirrorless cameras should be more resistant to mechanical stress, no?
What mechanical stress would be that?
Mirrorless seensor take light all the time unless one close the lens with the plastic cover, hence his short life.

Audiovista

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 1083
    • Vista-Audio
Re: What’s the allure to mirrorless full frame cameras?
« Reply #19 on: 15 Feb 2019, 04:44 pm »
With reasonable care, end-of-life shutter count is probably not a concern for most people. I wonder if mirrorless cameras are more shock-resistant - but then again, lens construction is pretty much the same and so is their sensitivity to stress.

Initial claim to fame was reduction in size and weight. I'm curious why do they keep getting larger/heavier, as mentioned a few posts above?