is mirrorless the next move of photography?

Yes, obviously, the mirror box makes absolutely no sense anymore

Its just a fad. Optical viewfinders are superior.

Maybe if they introduced a mechanism that protected the sensor between lense changes it would get more popular. But we already have that in DSLRs.

File: _RTK6501.jpg (160KB, 800x622px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 800x622px

>>3040570
>a mechanism that protected the sensor between lense changes

Like Sigma DSLR's have.

Why isn't this more popular?
It makes so much sense.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3S
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.4.1
Photographer	Richard Kilpatrick
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	220 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:06:26 18:22:12
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	1.58 m
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	220.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3040551
If some of the weaknesses can be ironed out maybe. At the moment they are just another tool in the box and for many photographers the disadvantages outweigh the benefits

>>3040570
>Optical viewfinders are superior.
Why? It is nice that they don't consume battery, but other than that... you're not seeing what the sensor receives, so you just get a idea about the composition and trust the camera to do what you intend. Also, good look shooting at night.

>>3040551
Sony A7 user here.

I honestly believe that mirrorless is the future but first companies need to improve the system with something similar to canon/nikons professional services and better weather sealing. No pro now days is going to really shoot with a camera with a single card slot, that is a major flaw with the sony issue and I've almost been fucked over by it a few times.

Many mirrorless users like to bash on DSLR's but fail to realize what they are, reliable and tough workhorse cameras. Mirrorless as of right now are toys compared to a quality DSLR.

Give it about 5 years and I bet you'll be seing a lot more pros switching to mirrorless as companies release better bodies.

>>3040593
>Also, good look shooting at night.

And thats why liveview was invented...

>>3040593
>trust the camera to do what you intend.

You just have to understand how metering and exposure works.

But yeah, they both have advantages and disadvantages.
And what we really need is a hybrid viewfinder - that should be fairly easy, just upgrade the very basic green LCD that shows all the focus points and settings to a full color LCD with regular pixels.

>>3040598
Liveview in DSLRs are clunky though.
>Mirror opens
>Screen turns on
>Press shoot button
>Mirror closes
>Mirror opens again
>Picture is taken
>Mirror closes
>Mirror opens again
>Screen turns on

Or, well, that was my experience with a Canon 1000D. So bad, I never used it.

>>3040613
You seem to have your mirror and shutter confused.

Worth pointing out, Live View was better on my 550D than it is on my Sony A7 (a camera that of course literally only functions in live view and has a substantially larger sensor with more pixels, as well as being several years newer).

The refresh rate was better on the Canon, and the magnified image is *much* sharper.
Shooting 1:1 macro, even with a massive backlight, it's difficult to determine sharp focus. I find it easier to just take a photo and check if focus is correct than to fumble with a soft, noisy live view image.

>>3040613
>>3040616

Not him, but my D3200 does the mirror thing in live view whereas my D800 doesn't.

I think on some (cheaper) DSLR's the shutter is physically linked to the mirror for some reason.

>>3040621
I was about to write this. In the Canon 1000D the mirror made too much unnecessary movements when using the liveview function. I could feel the mirror going down, then the shutter closing, firing, then the mirror going up again.

It was only good for precise focus in macro photography.

>>3040593

>no lag (but muh 120 fps)
>no battery drain
>no viewfinder blackout if you're using a rangefinder
>greater than 100% viewfinder coverage if you're using a rangefinder
>better magnification
>brighter image
>better resolution

There's still live view if you need to the two or three things that evf's actually offer, namely wysiwyg exposure and framing and low light focus.

>>3040655
so you're saying an xpro2 is the best camera on the market? I agree honestly

>>3040551
More like yesterday's gimmick, DSLRs, and even digital rangefinders are still going strong after all those years since MILC has been introduced.

>>3040666
>digital rangefinders
>digital
>rangefinders
lmfao.

File: IMG_0060.jpg (53KB, 769x413px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 769x413px

>>3040666
Yeah... about that...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Illustrator CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	769
Image Height	413
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3040683
>"And here it is! The chart that I made all by myself."

>>3040683
It doesn't show exponential growth in mirrorless sales, just a decline in DSLR.

File: CE7AAFE8-DE0A-4529-B64D-6B067B15B9F0-459-000000BB61CC5E22.jpg (169KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1200x675px

>>3040736
That's the point he's responding to

>>3040738
top right chart implies most of the decline in sales is down to the drop in p&s numbers as casuals stick to phones.

>>3040661

Yeah, I'm a weekend fujifag too and I do think the hybrid viewfinder offers the best of both worlds. I use optical 90% of the time, but it is handy to have the evf.

I mostly think electronic viewfinders are useful for brand new baby photographers who have trouble previsualizing or understanding the effect their settings have.

>>3040745
EVF is wysiwyg right down to film simulations, EC, and other in-camera processing.

OVF, including prisms and mirrors, is a film camera pretending to be digital.

I think it's obvious which one a purely digital camera should have. That being said, why are there idiot modes on Sony's A7 series. Is it a game console on the inside or some such?

>>3040762
In certain situations ovf is just better, eg sidelight or high contrast when an evf looks just bw, through ovf you can still see everything even with glasses.

DSLR's biggest downfall is not having live histogram. I imagine the next big thing in DSLR technology is to include a little pop-up electronic screen similar to the Fuji cameras for the purpose of displaying the histogram in the OVF

File: 1442818202921.jpg (96KB, 792x558px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 792x558px

>>3040683

>mirrorless sales/production stays exactly the same over the last 4 years despite seeing a much wider variety of models on the market
>yet mirrorless shitposting is on a meteoric rise

>>3040613
that's because on some dslrs the autofocus system requires the mirror to direct light onto it so you can autofocus with the mirror down aka through the viewfinder.

>>3040655
>lag
Sony is at 23ms, excellent human reactions are ten times that, if you blame lag you just want an excuse.
>battery
K
>no vf blackout with rf
Nor does mirrorless, you can add an rf to any hotshoe.
>better viewfinder coverage with rf
You're not seriously saying an rf is in any way better than ovf/evf? Let me just change my lens, and my viewfinder, that isn't accurate for composition, has the lens in the shot and offers no kind of exposure or dof preview.
>better magnification
Lol, no, ovf is physically limited, evfs can be whatever size
>brighter image
Lol, no, ovf is limited by available light, evf can show an image in almost pitch black
>better resolution
LOLLLL, no, ovfs resolution is limited to the grain in the ground glass, there's a compromise between resolution and brightness. Unless you get a specialist screen you can't even accurately focus lenses faster than f2.8

>>3040844
Camera sales have fallen through the shitter, mirrorless sales have been unaffected, learn 2 stats.

>>3040570

It already has a protective coating and is easily cleaned with swabs.

Why do we need more?

>>3040621
>>3040844

To be fair, there were MAJOR shortages in mirrorless bodies in 2016. It was impossible to find a Sony mirrorless for months at a time thanks to the earthquake.

>>3040804
Literally this.

>>3040913

>Sony is at 23ms, excellent human reactions are ten times that, if you blame lag you just want an excuse.
It's still perceptible, lad, and that's the point. It's not about your ability to capture events as they happen. It's about the disorienting-as-fuck lag between movement and and response that turns people off, and you'll. always. have. it.
>Nor does mirrorless, you can add an rf to any hotshoe.
lmao. yo dawg i heard you like viewfinders so i put a viewfinder above your viewfinder. but why would they, if evf is so much better?
>You're not seriously saying an rf is in any way better than ovf/evf? Let me just change my lens, and my viewfinder, that isn't accurate for composition, has the lens in the shot and offers no kind of exposure or dof preview.
Yes, I am saying that. Try actually shooting with one sometime.

You still need help with an exposure and dof preview? My condolences, kiddo. You'll get there, it just takes practice.

>Lol, no, ovf is physically limited, evfs can be whatever size

And yet they're still no bigger than a prosumer DSLR. Really makes you think.

>Lol, no, ovf is limited by available light, evf can show an image in almost pitch black

But what about daylight? :)

>LOLLLL, no, ovfs resolution is limited to the grain in the ground glass, there's a compromise between resolution and brightness.

and the grain is much finer than the chunky pixel pitch of even the newest EVF. As smartphones have shown us time and time again, battery life takes a big hit when you increase resolution. it's a double-edged sword. Not so with optical viewfinders. ;)

>>3040916

Did you try best buy? Mine had boxes of them stacked up. Sony is also not the the only mirrorless manufacturer, nor even the most popular.

>>3040963

If your had boxes of them, you shoulda done some scalping.

And Sony produces sensors for pretty much everyone but Canon. A shortage for Sony is a shortage for everyone.

>>3040913
Even if Human reaction is 200ms, the reaction of someone on a sony camera is then 223ms. It's only a 10% difference but still a difference

>>3040968
23 ms is about 2 frames in 24 fps movie. Now imagine pausing a movie and moving two frames back or forward. Do you see a difference?

The next move in photography is to go out and shoot pictures instead of wanking over viewfinders on a Senegalese 3D printing forum

>>3040970

23ms is how long it takes your mom to make me cum, and I can definitely feel it. ;)

>>3040963
>23ms
You get how short that is right? That's the same as the lag between picture and sound if you sit 8 metres from your tv.

>arguing over rf viewfinders, something that's only found on leica cameras

Nigger you dumb.

>try actually shooting with one

What would you rather I use? My fuji xa, fed 4, bessa or texas leica? They're a massive compromise to facilitate smaller, quieter cameras.

>you still need exposure help
Wysiwyg preview or needle match faggotry, which one makes more sense?

>viewfinders no bigger than a prosumer dslr
That's not true, the 1dx ii is the ONLY dslr with a larger finder than any of the sony range.

>what about daylight
My evf works perfectly, do you know how shadows work? I can even stare straight into the sun through it.

>and the grain is much...
Lol, no, evf's can magnify an area. Ovf you have to chimp to confirm focus or look like a spaz in liveview (good luck in daylight). The evf doesn't need a greater resolution, I can barely make out the pixels even when I intensely concentrate.

>>3040968
A d800 has about a 200ms shutter lag, how often do you hear d800 shooters say they missed the shot due to shutter lag?

>>3040970
Nah, 23ms is about 1/2 of one frame, each frame is 42ms ish.

>>3040976

Yeah man I watch my tv from 30 feet away all the time I can totally relate to that analogy.

>>3040984
Ok then, it's the same as the lag of half of one frame on your tv

>hurr anon, you think I watch things half a frame long?

>>3041008

You can dress it up in whatever analogy you want in an attempt to downplay it, but it's still lag, you can still see it.

>>3041021
There's more lag between an object being in front of the camera and the image being taken on a d800 than there is on an a6000, even once you take into account the viewfinder lag.

>>3040916
This
>>3040963
>Did you try best buy?
Any money they were basic bitch A7 models.

I decided I needed a mirrorless fool frame at pretty much exactly the time post earthquake when the shortage hit hard, and it fucked me.
I ended up settling for a plain A7, because nobody was letting go of their A7R's for less than $1600 AUD, even beaters that had been used for video work, and I knew I'd take a bath if I got one.
Paid $950 for the one I've got, and should easily get a similar price when I move on.

Now that I've used one though, I'm thinking I'll definitely switch back to Canon for my next upgrade.
Bullshit mirrorless hype and ISO obsession is pricing secondhand 5DS/R models around the same or cheaper than A7R2's, which is absurd.
I use them for film scanning, and I'm finding the Sony RAW files just don't have the same integrity as Canon ones do. And of course you have to push scans hard to get what you want out of them, and Sony files are just showing way too much colour noise and posterisation, and this fucking baked in highlight compression that is just frustrating.
And the camera is a joke, and the colour is a joke, and the Sony software is a joke.

>>3041037

The original a7 is widely known to be pretty damn mediocre overall. It didn't even have uncompressed raws.

It wan't until the mark 2s that they became worthwhile.

>>3041037
Absolutely this, from getting to use a Sony A7II.

The sensors do create this "drama" in the photos, but the problem is that they're poorly connected with reality. The only point that could be said about them is the very low read noise allowing one to push shadows and fix bad exposure for n00bs.

And for the EVF stuff? At any rate beyond rank amateur you should know what exposure looks like and how to read light. Any pro work is going to be done with off camera flash anyways, and an EVF won't help you with that.

>>3041031

and yet it's slower than the 5D3 and 5D4. ;)

I like my A7 a lot mostly because of the legacy lens capability and the dynamic range. I don't trust it for any professional work though. It overheats, gives me half-frames at shutter speeds over 1/4000 and sometimes just decides not to shoot at all. It's only good for personal work.

>>3040785
You're right -- the human eyesight does handle high contrast better than a display of around 8 bits of depth per channel and a RGB mask. Also a point I skipped over before, a finder that sees outside the frame.

I suppose the hybrid finder is more of a concession to EVF and equivalently live view being still lesser to oldschool methods. Not that I've ever minded it personally.

>>3041080
Legacy glass is still a big one for me, but I really don't use digital cameras anymore, and between my EOS and AiS Nikkor glass, I could shoot really anything except megabokeh and supersharp ultrawide on a 5Ds/r
The only thing I'd lose in the switch is the ability to conduct digital lense testing with all my Konica, Oly and FD glass, but that's rank gearfaggotry anyway.
And, you know, if I wanted to use a digital camera for anything, I'd have a reliable, intuitive, responsive CAMERA to use, for several hours, rather than a become death destroyer of batteries fucking EVF plastic toy.

File: 1489086182002.jpg (26KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x480px

>>3040574
The vast majority of Sigma's innovations are amazing and entirely non-replicated by the rest of the industry. Imagine a mix between the Fujifilm X100 and DP2 Merrill, Or the Pentax K1 and SD Quattro H. Sigma sit on a huge set of features which people would be willing to switch system for and do nothing with them.

File: cameras.jpg (155KB, 704x904px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 704x904px

poorfag here.

which would be a good first mirrorless camera, the a5100 or the NX300??

>>3041356
Well the NX300 has the better lense system...
>also is clearly on fleek with dat brown on silver

>>3041372

lol wut

nx300 is a dead lens systems with a handful of lenses.

>>3041356

Neither.

a6000 is your best bet. The evf us worth the small price increase.

>>3041046
>The sensors do create this "drama" in the photos

What the fuck does that even mean?

>>3040683
>mirrorless basically the same for 4 years
>dslr declined for some millions
It's milenials buying phones over real cameras, not mirrorless influencing jack shit.

Should I wait a little more before dumping my d3300 and get an mirrorless camera? I want to be able to use old MF lenses from multiple mounts.

>>3041448

It's your money my man.

File: 1488488417000_IMG_762500.jpg (38KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x500px

What's this /p/?

Is m43 not dead yet?

>>3041453

Nah, it outsells Sony in Japan.

>>3041448
Buy an a7ii right now.

>>3041462

In 2016, yes. But mainly due to sensor shortages thanks to the quake.

If Sony ever gets around to releasing a7iii and a9 that will change.

>>3041464

lol k

>>3040551
just get xpro 2 if you want ovf without the mirror slap.

>>3041356
if you want to go samshit, it's either nx500 or nx1.

>a5100
if you really want it small. otherwise a6000.
if you want cheap buy used. nex6, 7, 5t, eos m.

>>3041453
shittiest camera made by chinks.
don't buy.

Mirrorless cameras have their place and have a lot of room for improvement, there's no denying that. They're smaller, lighter, and less obnoxious than a DSLR just from its size. They also appeal to more casual users who really just want what is essentially a big sensored point and shoot to point, half-press, take the picture, and be done with it.

I can see mirrorless cameras drawing lots of sales from entry-level DSLR's which were targeted towards casual users.

For things that move and things in the dark though, you really can't beat a DSLR or something that offers real manual focus. Mirrorless digital cameras may be a new phenomenon compared to DSLR's (made with technology that was mature), but it's really foolish to assume they're somehow natural progressions are are better because they're newer. It's just an alternative design path that came back in the digital era.

Specs-wise, cameras like the Sony A7 might seem impressive, but will still fall apart for something like an indoor volleyball game, or end up hunting and costing you a crucial shot while shooting an event, things even bargain-bin rabals can manage without breaking a sweat.

>>3041472
Rf finder != ovf

>>3041485
>manual focus is no good on mirrorless
That would explain why literally no one buys mirrorless for focus peaking or focus mag with their old mf lenses.

It probably explains the popular zeiss loxia range too.

>mirrorless can't focus in low light
My a7ii focuses in -1 ev, same as anything from nikon except the d750. And what do you do with your f1.4 lenses when the light goes down past that, zone focus and pray? Liveview? Lol, my a7ii boosts the image brightness and automatically zooms in when I rotate the focus ring, never miss focus again, never chimp again.

>its foolish to think natural progression makes things better

Dslr's are a massive compromise just to allow the user to see what the camera sees, dslr focusing is inherently less accurate, there's a flappy fragile mirror that adds to shutter lag and is noisy, lens design is fucked for wide angle designs, the mirror box means they have to be far larger than necessary, it limits the viewfinder size. I could go on.

>fall apart at an indoor volleyball game
Lol, no, my sony doesn't hunt that bad even with adapted lenses.

>costing you a shot
Can your lens lock onto sharp focus of an eye and track it, or do you just wait for the beep and hope it's not focused on specs/nose/hair instead when you chimp?
How many shots have you missed whilst chimping for focus or exposure?

>>3041504

I mean, i don't think dill has ever posted a photo in focus, mirrorless or otherwise.

You could post some of your razor sharp contrast-detected on-the-fly photos you've taken tho.

File: pictured here in a ten-year-old E-330.jpg (178KB, 1257x1104px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1257x1104px

>>3040570
>Maybe if they introduced a mechanism that protected the sensor between lense changes it would get more popular.

Yes, if only such systems existed...

>>3042292

Instead they just put a dust resistant and scratch proof coating on the sensor.

Easily cleaned.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (69KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1280x720px

>>3040593
>>3040598
>>3040570
So you guys are saying Fuji X100/XPro2 and LEica M series are superior?

>>3042296
>So you guys are saying Fuji X100/XPro2 and LEica M series are superior?
yes

>>3042292
>put a good anti IR/UV glass in front of the sensor
>make it easily acessible for cleaning
Done.

>>3042296
Ask yourself this I you want

A
>shows exactly what the sensor sees
>changes preview on the fly as you change settings
>boosts scenes too dark
>zooms in for tack sharp focus
>uses ai to better focus and expose
>not affected by eyeglasses
>has an imperceptible lag to it (23ms, 1/15th of the blink of an eye)

B
>a hazy little window that nearly points at what you want
>you can view the lens, so you don't forget what lens you're using when shooting
>which is useful, because the viewfinder may not automatically adjust when you put on a new lens
>got a telephoto lens? How good is your squinting?
>got a fast lens, good luck

>>3042665

Those cameras give you both options a and b, idiot.

>>3042767
>claiming the xpro range of evf's are useful for anything

lol

>>3042769
>claiming the xpro 2 has a rangefinder

lol

Upgraded from 5D3 to A7R2 don't regret it at all. mirrorless is the future the current generation mirrorless is light years ahead of DSLR hence why so many are swapping, only downside is current lack of native lenses but adapting is easy and more and more FE lens being released all the time

>>3042770
The xpro does have a rf you idiot
>>3042769
And the evf is pretty much the best on the market you dont know anything

>>3040593
I do wildlife so I can just use it as a spotting scope.

>>3043470
>digislug believes fujis meme marketing at face value
CUTE

File: R0137154 (Custom).jpg (127KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1000x662px

>>3040593
>good look shooting at night.
What did he mean by this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:29 11:21:50
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	-2.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>3043470
except in low light when it drops to 5fps but yeah man its the best on the market

>>3043912
The evf in the a7rii is physically larger, has greater magnification and better fps.

The 0.6 mag of the xpro2 basically ruins the biggest advantage of crop mirrorless, avoiding the tiny viewfinder. Kek.

File: 1349794014743.jpg (35KB, 397x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 397x400px

>>3041350
>Imagine a mix between the Fujifilm X100 and DP2 Merrill

File: 1.jpg (160KB, 960x552px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 960x552px

Photography can be done with just about anything these days. so it doesn't matter much.

I always get a kick when I see old men take out their big DSLRs, and really act out a super serious life/death roleplaying, taking pictures while sweating and wondering whether the shot was in focus, and afterwards quickly checking if the exposure was right as if their life depended on it.

And then everybody realise they're just at a press conference taking snapshits of two politicians who are standing still and they would probably be better off with a small EVF thing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.
Camera Model	PlayStation(R)Vita
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:15 18:11:22
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	960
Image Height	544

File: lel.jpg (35KB, 424x548px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 424x548px

>>3044313
>xtrans interpolation
>xbox hueg
>12mp
>battery life like tears in the rain
>write speeds inspired by tolkien
>Sigma Photo Pro

>>3044358
they could have just been looking at the live histogram on their EVF with no need to chimp afterwards. why havent DSLRs adopted hybrid viewfinders?

Most of the mirrorless users I've encountered so far are extremely arrogant assholes that look down to anyone that own gears cheaper than theirs.

Especially Sonyfaggots.

I wish we could stop masturbating over gears and start going out to take more pictures.

Your pictures are the only thing that worth a damn