If you're going to start attacking me and my job rather than arguing the points I'm making then why are you even here? The point I'm getting at which you seem to have consistently supported is that the key advantage of mirrorless cameras is the size, but that's where it ends too.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Photography: DSLR vs Mirrorless
- Thread starter jstripes
- Start date
- Status
If you're going to start attacking me and my job rather than arguing the points I'm making then why are you even here? The point I'm getting at which you seem to have consistently supported is that the key advantage of mirrorless cameras is the size, but that's where it ends too.
How am I attacking you? I am very much looking forward to you backing up your "Canon L is better quality than any lens in mirrorless world" statement.
Canon USM lenses, L or otherwise are consistently rated with a better DXO sharpness score than Olympus and Panasonic 4/3 lenses with equivalent mpix. Larger sensors of course allow for both a greater sharpness quotient and better low light. You don't need CN-E lenses...
edit: running away from the fact that the battery life on mirrorless cameras are comparatively crippled versus SLRs isn't going to make it a non-factor for street shooting.
Alright man, give me a couple hours. I will write a detailed reply when I get home from work.
Send it to DXO.
Alright photo GAF, now you have me curious.
I currently have a RX100 (gen 1), love it, works great and is travel friendly. I love taking indoor / low-light shots though so I'm wondering if the A6000 with a prime lens (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096W1P5W/?tag=neogaf0e-20) would work better in that scenario? Similar focal length, same f/1.8. Am I wrong in assuming the APS-C sensor in the A6000 would provide far better low light performance? And anyway to quantify how much better it would be?
I hardly ever use the optical zoom on the RX100 since the IQ degrades pretty fast in low light.
I currently have a RX100 (gen 1), love it, works great and is travel friendly. I love taking indoor / low-light shots though so I'm wondering if the A6000 with a prime lens (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096W1P5W/?tag=neogaf0e-20) would work better in that scenario? Similar focal length, same f/1.8. Am I wrong in assuming the APS-C sensor in the A6000 would provide far better low light performance? And anyway to quantify how much better it would be?
I hardly ever use the optical zoom on the RX100 since the IQ degrades pretty fast in low light.
Better, yes. Far better? IMO not a big leap, but noticeably better.
Even with the larger sensor of the A6000? The comparison of a 1" to a APS-C seems fairly dramatic on paper. Is that not the case in a real world setting?
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Depends.
When I worked on a Rankin shoot, he used a Phase One Medium format camera. He also had a Leica S-System that never left the case.
When I worked on an Annie Leibovitz shoot, she used Phase One as well, though jumped to the Canon 1DX when needed.
Interestingly as a side-note, she used zoom lenses instead of prime on the 1DX, the 24-70mm 2.8 Mark II to be exact.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Depends on the type of shoot (portrait vs. environmental), studio shooting (with flash) vs. Exterior Natural light. Once you get these aspects down, you'll have your camera. The most versatile bodies are the ones where you can sync flash units so you can go from studio shooting to outside depending on need.
It'll still look pretty dirty past ISO 800, but just less so than the RX100.
Bigger sensors provide better low light performance. You can google the ISO performance to see the difference. It is quantified in exposure stops where every stop up equals twice as much light. A 1.8 lens is 1.5 stops faster (more light) than a 2.8. Twice the ISO is also one stop higher as is half the shutter speed.
Shame large sensors and fast apertures are both so insanely expensive because I love shooting at night.
I have a photography business, but it is not my main source of income. I shoot landscapes and wildlife. I have used and carried on multi mile hikes a 7lb 300f2.8 + camera, tripod and head.
I have used a gigantic medium format Fuji gx617 pano camera, again + tripod and head.
I have most recently used a phase one IQ 180 with a mamiya afd + tripod and head.
Size and weight are meaningless to me, I can admit that. But I want the best image quality possible and the only way to do that is with a tripod and low ISO.
I have and love a Olympus em5, I've been shooting Olympus and mirrorless since before it was cool. Its a great camera and takes great photos, but even its lens range pales as compared to whats available for a dslr. I would not trust its auto focus in intense lowlight situations, but as I understand the newer cameras are getting better. Its my go to camera for casual events and family things, as Im not going to carry a medium format camera around for casual stuff, because sometimes I don't event take photos in those situations.
All cameras have their place, not really sure why your lecturing us on why mirrorless is the only way to go.
Prove it. Olympus makes some of the best lenses around and are generally sharp across the frame which is not something you generally find in canikon lenses. Also I recall dxo rating the oly 75mm as one of the best lenses they ever tested. Edit, its the best m43 lens they've tested. I don't really read them that much.
Are you joking? There's a whole range of Canon (p-mpix 20), Nikon, Sigma (p-mpix 20), and Zeiss (p-mpix 21) lenses that are rated higher than the 75mm in sharpness (p-mpix 13).
No, if you see my edit, its the best m43 lens they've tested. I had to go look it up.
Anyway, one simply needs to use these lenses to see how they perform. I don't follow dxo because I couldn't care less about performance in a lab, or mtf charts, I care about real world performance and what people like Kirk tuck have to say and people like Michael Reichmann have to say. Both of which love Olympus glass. I couldn't tell you what they scored the d800 or what they scored my former camera the iq180 at, its just not that important, really. Theres a lot more to photography for me than how did dxo rate this?
In the lab, or outside of it, there's absolutely no reason to believe that Olympus glass offers any more sharpness than what Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Zeiss offers, and based off of DXO's testing, those 4 brands offer better lenses. I'm not doubting that Olympus' 4/3 glass is the best on 4/3rds cameras but it'd be erroneous to equate it to what Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Zeiss offers for APS-C/fullframe. It's a different market.
Well the Zeiss 55 1.8 FE is rated better than those (sans otus) right? And its a mirrorless lens.
You have to compare sharpness at the same sensor size on their charts. Those numbers go down on smaller sensors. But DxO score for lenses really only tell very small part of story about a lens anyway. It doesn't really measure the rendering aspect of a lens.
No.
No you don't.
It gives metrics for chroma, sharpness, distortion, T, vignetting which is solid IMO.
Yes?
It's rated higher than any Canon, Nikon, or Sigma and only bested by the uber expensive Zeiss Otus.
It's not charted above the SLR Sigma, Nikon, and Zeiss lenses, no. The only mirrorless lens that charts belongs to a Cybershot RX1 which isn't even removable.
Yes you do if you are going to compare the p-mpix number between different lenses. Pick any lens and change the sensor size the number will be different. By taking the absolute number you are basically saying largest sensor and with highest mp will always win. Oh well read it however you want.
It's your opinion. There are characteristics with lenses not measured by these numbers which is why people still prefer some legacy lenses even if their chroma is crap in today's standard for example.
I must be using their site wrong then because when I open their site it's on the "DxOMark Score" and the fourth lens listed is the Sony FE Carl Zeiss Sonnar T*55mm f1.8 ZA, right behind 3 mounts of the Otus. And when you click the "Optical Metric Score" it's the #1 lens on the default sharpness tab.
What am i missing?
4/3rds SLRs don't exist, so a 1:1 comparison using the same sized sensor would be useless. The best combination of glass and bodies are on full frame, and APS-C SLRs.
That's what IMO means.
I wouldn't be able to say since using the sharpness filter, Sony is last on the first page.
EDIT: Ahh, MP was set from 0-24MP. Though it is a Zeiss lens paired with a D800 sensor, and abysmal low-light AF. It does support the notion that Olympus's glass isn't special outside of the 4/3rds realm.
Yea there is. By the simple fact that many canikon lenses struggle, some mightily, with edge to edge sharpness. Many requiring to be stopped down several stops to be optimally sharp.(one just needs to read any camera forum to see many complaints about corner sharpness or corner smudging). Olympus is famous for producing lenses that are almost at their optimal sharpness wide open, but I get the sense you've never actually used them and just want to play the expert because you read what dxo had to say. And rugalz is correct, comparing how lenses perform should be done as close to apples to apples as you can get.
Yeah, but it shows that you don't know what you're talking about when you said this
Looks like the mirroless Zeiss 35 2.8 FE is rated higher than any Canon or Nikon SLR wide angle lens as well.
The simple fact is, is that Olympus's lenses aren't as sharp as Nikon or Canon's at the 12-18 MP range.
Zeiss 25mm, and Sigma 35mm rated higher on sharpness, and for an overall score, you can throw in a palette of other Nikon, Zeiss, Sigma, and Canon lenses that top it.
I am not, I am just calling out the bullshit claims in this thread that claim DSLR is the only way to go if you want to take professional pictures.
For anyone looking to get a DSLR or mirrorless some things to consider:
-Size does matter: Chances are you want to take pictures of your kids/street photography/vacation photography. A DSLR is a heavy beast. You are not going to want to carry a backpack full of DSLR equipment all day. It is also terrible for street and candid photography because everyone notices a DSLR instantly while you can take pictures with a small mirrorless and nobody cares. Most venues and concerts don't even let people carry in a DSLR with them while you can freely take in a mirrorless.
-Price does matter: DSLR's are expensive. Cheap DSLR's are without exception shitty cameras. Yes you can get a Canon T3i with the useless kit lens for $600 but that camera is a piece of shit you will hate. It has terrible viewfinder and lacks many features that make it worth getting a DSLR. A full frame Canon will cost you $2k+ to $3700 body only and the lenses for full frame sensors are WAY more expensive and bigger than lenses made for smaller sensors. If you believe Diaspora's BS and buy some L lenses for your cheap ass canon T3i it will be a waste of money because you are paying full frame lens prices and using it on a crop body. Mirrorless system lenses are designed for the smaller sensor and body so they are smaller while having equal or much better IQ while being much cheaper.
Full frame does NOT matter: Clueless people will say things like "you need full frame if you want to take pro looking pictures or if you want to shoot in the dark" That is pretty much the equivalent of "you need to buy a new GFX card every month if you want to play a game on PC". Modern Mirrorless cameras all have ISO comparable to full frame nowadays. Fuji cameras can shoot up to ISO 6400 with barely any noise.
AF Speed: Pro DSLR's are faster than mirrorless cameras in this department. Chances are you won't be getting a pro DSLR nor need one unless you make your living shooting sports. Current mirrorless AF speed is fast enough for most anything you will shoot. Do a youtube search for the camera you are interested in and it's AF speed test.
Lenses: Mirrorless have absolutely amazing lens selection and anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about or believes that Leica lenses are the only lenses capable of taking good pictures. When you are buying lenses it goes like this: There are lenses that are slow and crap. Such as your cheap kit lenses like the ones that come with T3i's. Then you have the good value lenses. These are the lenses that are cheaper than the "pro" lenses but give you %90 of the image quality. Maybe they are a little softer in the corners but nobody will give a fuck nor notice when they look at your pictures.
A good example of this is the Canon 85mm USM f1.8 here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html
and the 85mm f1.2 here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html
The cheaper one actually focuses way faster too by the way. The 85 1.2 is a beast of a lens that weights like a car and you will be lucky if you can get anything in focus at f1.2. I owned and shot and sold prints with both and preferred the cheaper one because it was easier to carry and use and honestly it was sharp enough. Don't fall into the trap where the camera store salesmans try to trick you into thinking you can only shoot good pictures with pro lenses. Some of the most famous pictures taken in history are taken with cameras you can buy for $20 nowadays. The best camera is the one you can always carry with you.
Here are some videos and sites:
XT-1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW8Cz_v3w1E
EM-1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESOj56fWB8Q
Fashion photography with Fuji: http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/
http://beam.zackarias.com/#!/index
Olympus EM1: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/02/12/the-olympus-e-m1-takes-manhattan-by-neil-buchan-grant/
Well I thought sharpness was where you were hanging your hat. And lol. A palette? You're trying too hard. Most of those are the exact same lens just measured on different bodies and there is only one Canon and one Nikon that are higher. And by "higher" the Canon has the same score and the Nikon is a 34 vs a 33.
Size doesn't really matter, a sling bag is all that's necessary unless you want to bring a 70-200 with you.
Still advantageous over 4/3rds as far as general and low-light AF are concerned.
Yes, yes. $1500 = $2000+
And they would still deliver better results than 4/3rds.
Mirrorless APS-C and 4/3rds cameras do not compare to full frame mirrorless or SLR cameras, and certainly not for noise.
Sports, or people walking.
I actually use the 1.8 over the 1.2 as well for the speed.
edit: yo, are we going to mention street photography but not the significant differences in battery life?
Lmao, way to move the goal posts. But Olympus has a better "rendering palette" than Nikon or canon. Just talk to someone who use all the systems. You really need to go do some research, Olympus is famous for their lenses, plain and simple, like literally, you hear the names Zeiss, Leica and zuiko when people talk about great lenses/lens makers.
Also, you completely ignored my point about edge to edge sharpness and edge smudging that is very prevalent with canikon lenses. Agree to disagree, you can use dxo, ill use real world experience.
Photography is serious business. Everyone has to justify their purchases to others on the net.
But as I said earlier all cameras have their place. You'd have to try to buy a bad camera nowadays.
And I'll use both.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157640158298025/
Predictive AF tracking with X-T1. Shot in f1.2.
Fuji does. There are a million reviews that compare and contrast already so anyone doubting the ISO prowess of APS-C cameras can check those out for proof.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
And even then a shit camera is worthwhile in the right hands.
I've already done research for this in advance, and it still doesn't hold up against full frame.
I've done the same thing. I have a 7D and when I bought the EOS-M I stopped using it as much. Only use the 7D when going to the zoo. My EOS-M has become my main camera with the 22mm..
I went on a cruise to Mexico and took both cameras. Used the EOS-M 95% of the trip due to weight and gets less attention from other people. You should pick up a efm 18-55 as a second lens for your trip.
You're cool with lugging around a DSLR bag but you can't put an extra tiny battery in your pocket?
Unless you need to take a picture when you're changing batteries...
It's a sling bag, so I don't actually have to lug around anything. This is doubly true if I just bring the body on a black rapid strap with a prime. I also have near triple the battery life so that's nice.
Can you explain the bolded for me? I don't really have a hat in this race yet, but I've been looking to get a more high quality camera, and so far in all my research the general consensus tends to be that if size isn't an issue, then a DSLR beats mirrorless in pretty much all other categories, particularly price and image quality. But you seem to be implying otherwise, and I'm curious as to your reasoning.
Size really isn't an issue for me. On days when I feel like I'm going to be carrying more than my phone, keys and wallet I carry my day bag with me, which makes the size difference between a DSLR and mirrorless almost negligible.
You're being a bit of a douche about this aren't you? Even a lot of your examples in that last rant are completely wrong. I don't know if you haven't bothered looking or are lying for more effect. "A full frame Canon will cost you 2k+-3700" - No it doesn't. You can get a 6D for 1499 or a 5DII or 5D far cheaper. Or "cheap DSLRs are without exception shitty cameras" - How about a Nikon D7000 for 600 or under? Not a shitty camera.
Someone mentioned getting a mirror less as a back saving thing over DSLR's. that was before this thread took a typical turn for the... Well, whatever it did that made it not fun. Which is the opposite of what hobbyist cameras and photo taking should be.
Regarding, about the back thing, get - or make - a 'gliding camera strap'. It attaches to the cameras tripod screw, slings around your shoulder like a backpack and allows the camera to freely move along the sling.
http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57496891-285/diy-the-$10-gliding-camera-strap/
Best ever, regardless of the camera you use, but doubly so if you're using big glass. I made mine, cost all of $5 (as I had the majority of the bits and pieces already lying around). And if you want to not look like someone who just bought their camera, this small change to the way you carry your camera will make you stand out ever so slightly, for better or worse, as well as save your back and neck.
http://howto.cnet.com/2300-11310_39-10013443-6.html
Regarding, about the back thing, get - or make - a 'gliding camera strap'. It attaches to the cameras tripod screw, slings around your shoulder like a backpack and allows the camera to freely move along the sling.
http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57496891-285/diy-the-$10-gliding-camera-strap/
Best ever, regardless of the camera you use, but doubly so if you're using big glass. I made mine, cost all of $5 (as I had the majority of the bits and pieces already lying around). And if you want to not look like someone who just bought their camera, this small change to the way you carry your camera will make you stand out ever so slightly, for better or worse, as well as save your back and neck.
http://howto.cnet.com/2300-11310_39-10013443-6.html
Everytime I change batteries something magical and once in a lifetime happens. Fuck.
- Status