Question about Mirrorless Cameras

File: exposure-meter.jpg (19KB, 600x242px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x242px

because exposure meter

Wysiswyg becomes less worthwhile as you gain experience and thus intuition. RAW shooting also has less necessity for wysiswyg, since it's a more technical form of shooting than merely relying on what your subjective eye sees. It's important to know that evf's aren't an exact representation of the end product, but rather a loosey goosey approximation.

The real breakthrough with evf's is manual focusing, although focus peaking is also an approximation and not absolute. Ironically, however, while your eye is terrible at judging exposure, it's great at discerning sharpest focus, so it's best to turn focus peaking off and just use magnification. Even more ironically, dslr's do just as good a job with this in live view.

Really, the reason to use mirrorless is the form factor. They are typically far less bulky than something with a mirror box. The compromise to form factor, however, is battery life. You still need a physically large battery in 2017 to store a lot of milliamperes, and all manufacturers have opted for lower capacity batteries to maintain the illusion that their cameras are still sleek and smooth. Combine that with the fact that literally operation on a mirrorless camera (including merely looking through the magical viewfinder) draws power, and you end up with truly abysmal battery life.

>>3066021

I see. My problem is with a DSLR, I have tried growing my intuition for the light meter, but I still feel clueless. I have tried all the different types of metering settings, averaging, taking photos at different exposure levels, focusing on an object and adjusting the exposure level for the subject. Maybe its because my DSLR is just old and fading, but I can never seem to get a good picture. They're almost always overexposed.

I'm no pro and I'm certainly attracted to the compactness of mirrorless. I don't even mind shelling out for a few extra batteries to carry around. I just want to know that if I make the leap to mirrorless, I'm not settling for a second rate bit of tech.

>>3066019

See above.

>>3066026

So stop overexposing. Every camera since 1993 has been capable of exposing perfectly in every situation.

>>3066013
Because photographers are using SLR's since the 60's without a problem.

Lern2 exposure m8
>>3066019

>>3066030
>>3066031

Maybe I just need more practice... I'm writing this because I'm seriously considering buying a Sony a7. Is there anything you would recommend instead? I really like it because of the features and the high tech EVF. I just don't like the limited range of lenses...

What's the best way to practice getting the exposure right? Clearly I'm crap at it. It sounds silly, but when capturing fast moving subjects, the lightmeter is constantly jumping around (obviously). How do you combat this?

:)

>>3066026
How many years have you been shooting? In about 3-4 years I learned to guesstimate exposure quite well, and combined with the nikon dslr I had at the time (d600), exposures came out pretty much perfect every time. Ovf still completely stomps evf in bright sunny days with hard contrast. And this comes from a mirrorless user.

>>3066034

Only a year or so. I used to do a lot of video work and generally my subjects were static, the lighting was controlled etc. I'm not a complete novice, but this is the first year I've really taken photography seriously.

If it's just a case of practice on practice then I guess I need more!

>>3066013
Dslr fags running scared.

The sensor is the same, so image quality is identical, except mirrorless has a shorter flange distance which is a lot less constrictive on lens design and allows the rear of the lens to be closer to the sensor, hence why sony has some of the best performing lenses on the market.

Dslr fags believe their 23ms (1/40th of a second) viewfinder advantage, longer battery life and better af on cheaper models keeps them ahead of mirrorless. Whilst mirrorless users are laughing at their giant autism boxes, ancient viewfinder technology, lack of intelligent af and fucking awful wide angle lens options.

>>3066030
Like this needle matching faggot right here, "hurrr, the camera knows how to expose and raws have latitude". Because pushed raws look just like correctly exposed ones, and your camera knows exactly what exposure you want creatively, right?

>>3066031
They also used thalidomide in the 60's, how'd that turn out?

>>3066032
>sony a7
>limited range of lenses
Unless autofocus is important to you, you can use nearly every lens ever made, with a cheap adapter.

It's a fantastic camera, go for it.

>>3066013
no one said they're not good.

>>3066082
>They also used thalidomide in the 60's, how'd that turn out?
G'morning poopchute, god you're on fire today

>>3066082

OP here

>autism boxes
>needle matching faggot
>thalidomide

You sir have given me the heartiest kek of 2017 along with sound camera advice. Thank you.

I think mirrorless is for me. Even if it makes me amateurish in the eyes of some I don't really care. Autofocus is kinda important but I'm sure I can put on my big boy pants and turn the dial myself on the right lens.

I assume you have a mirrorless camera at the moment? What do you have and any specific positives / negatives?

>>3066110
Yeh, I have a sony a7ii and fuji xe1, I also have pentax and nikon dslrs.

I wouldn't ever go back to a dslr.

The a7 isn't perfect, but only because sony are so fast to innovate and improve, for me, spending an extra £500 and trading in my a7 was worth it for the ibis and very usable af with adapted canon lenses on a good adapter. These 2 things probably aren't worth it for a newbi, but it does mean you have an exciting and varied upgrade path if the photography bug does bite fully.

Using a manual focus lens with manual aperture control in combination with the evf is also going to help you learn about the exposure triangle faster. Once you have the exposure triangle nailed, you can pick up any camera in the world and take great photos.

>>3066125

I don't usually splash out on tech for myself and this is something I love and only really do for me. I think I will go for an a7 in that case. I saw the a9, but for me I think that's like taking a Ferrari on a grocery run.

What lens do you use that fits an a7 and has manual aperture control?

>>3066125

Also you seem extremely knowledgeable. Regarding the exposure triangle, there is one thing I don't understand.

I get why you would change the aperture for DOF and the shutter speed for motion blur, but why the hell wouldn't you use the lowest ISO always? I always keep mine on 100, unless I absolutely have to. Are grainy pictures fashionable to some?

>>3066134
>what lens do I use
A fuck ton, last count I had over 50 lenses, nearly all manual focus and aperture, every one has been on my sony at some point.
Some favourites include

Nikon 50mm f1.4 pre ai, nikon 105mm f2.5, voigtlander 35mm ultron, canon FD 35, 50 and 135mm lenses.

However I've also got the sony 55 1.8 and sony 28 f2 and a selection of canon L lenses with a sigma mc11 adapter and even lenses from old cheap film point and shoots that I've jerry rigged.

Pic attached is with the nikon 50mm.

Being able to use anything has brought a lot of fun to photography for me, a decent quality 50mm f1.8 can be had for £30, thrown on a £10 adapter and will take great photos.

>>3066137
>why bump iso
As a rule of thumb, dont drop your shutter speed below 1/(2 x focal length) if you want to avoid blurry shots. If your 50mm lens is wide open and you're at 1/100 and it's still too dark, bump the iso.

On the a7 you can get perfectly clean shots at iso 800 with minimal noise reduction needed, quite often if I'm just taking snapshits for example In Forest I'll whack it on iso 400 and know that I don't need super steady hands, I can just point and click. An important thing to remember with noise In digital photos is that they are ALWAYS resampled, normally from around 20mp down to 2 (1080p is 2mp), so whilst you may see noise in 100% crops at iso 800, they're not gonna show in your exported shots. Fwiw, I think pic attached is iso 800, on mobile so can't check.

There is an argument that noise is aesthetic, I think they're wrong and it's faux nostalgia, but each to their own.

File: 1493461251257.jpg (133KB, 933x1400px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 933x1400px

>>3066137
Forgot pic

>>3066146

That picture is stunning. I guess that's why they call them nifty fifties?

>>3066145
>dont drop your shutter speed below 1/(2 x focal length) if you want to avoid blurry shots
So, ultimately, a bump in ISO allows you to use a quicker shutter speed if the lighting isn't sufficient... I'm looking at the photo attached. Surely with the natural light of the forest you wouldn't need to go as high as 400/800? Maybe I'm oversimplifying as I don't know what your other settings were.

>A fuck ton, last count I had over 50 lenses
I think this is something a long way in the future, but why so many cameras? Surely you just upgrade to the best to take photographs, or are you a collector?

>a7
I think I'll take the leap and get it. I'm excited about it, I just wish it had both the exposure and aperture dials on the top like the Olympus om-d EM10 mk II does.

>>3066147
>iso
You may be surprised how much light thick foliage can take away! You can also set the iso to auto on sony, and use the exposure comp dial to make adjustments to the exposure. I'd say, don't worry about iso with a full frame modern camera, you're going to be really hard pushed to make photos with noticeable noise.

>why so many
I started on film cameras, had a handful of lenses, moved onto digital on a different mount, got a handful more, sometimes you want 1 item in a big box of camera stuff, so you acquire even more, stuff just accumulates mang. My lenses are fairly evenly split between ones I still use, and ones not worth the time and effort to sell. It has meant if I have friends that want to have a play I can donate them a film body and lens.

I hope you enjoy your new toy bro! Don't be too mad if photos don't come out straight away as you want, composition and editing take time to learn. :)

File: 11.jpg (1MB, 2592x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1728px

>>3066149

Thank you! I really appreciate the advice. This is certainly the nicest board on 4chan, I think. Just real quick...

>I started on film cameras
Is it worth experimenting with film even in this day and age? Or is it something that has just been so obliterated by technology that it's a hipster thing?

>editing
It has recently come to my attention that I am horrific at editing. What applications are best for newbies and what's the best way to learn?

Thanks again! Pic related, it's one I took while on my travels in Vietnam. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated (unedited).

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 700D
Lens Size	100.00 - 300.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.1
Lens Name	EF100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:14 02:49:34
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1728
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	132

>>3066154
>film
Yeh, film is great, it's a faff, but it has an aesthetic that can't be reproduced from digital sensors and is in many ways much more technically advanced than digital (colour depth and dynamic range) and there's even films that destroy digital for resolution like adox cms 20.

If you bought say pentax lenses for your a7, you could pick up a film body for 20 quid and have a play using your existing gear, neato.

Hipsters tend to go for old metal bodies from the 70's that are haggered as fuck and give shit results, nikon still sell the f5 film body brand new for big money.

>editing
Yeh, it's a long learning curve, just jump into lightroom and play until you can predict exactly what every slider does. There's plenty of tutorials online about achieving particular aesthetics, or you can go down the 1 click hipster vsco preset route.

>>3066110
>>3066125
this entire thread is moopco pretending to be a newfag so he can shill himself on his own camera

look and weep

>>3066167
This entire board is salty little children that are upset because moopco said their photos were bad.

>>3066179
This is also moopco, as evidenced by the fact that he thinks people care about his opinions.

>>3066184
If no-one cared about my opinions, they wouldn't get so salty over me ;)

checkmate loser.

>>3066189
False proposition. Some of us just like to make you reveal yourself because it's like a funny game of whack-a-mole.

>>3066191
>i was just pretending to be retarded

Classic defense.

>>3066189

OP here. I've been on this board for a few weeks now and I can tell threads just dissolve into samefag accusations and brand buttlicking.

Thanks again for the advice. Godspeed

>>3066082

>creative exposure

Lmao

Live histogram is more useful than a lightmeter. That's what I would want to use an EVF for. Unless DSLRs came out with Auto ETTR to do it for me.

>>3066325
>auto ettr
This is what magic lantern and highlight weighted exposure have been giving canon and Nikon users for the last 10 years

Also this thread may well be the gayest thing ive ever seen a human being do on the internet.

>>3066308
>>3066325
>>3066334
>itt: people that confuse well metered photos for well exposed photos

>>3066389

>people that shouldn't post on this board

>>3066389
You just took a shit with your clothes on son.

>>3066033
you too friend :)

Well I am not going to say that mirrorless are useless, but I will say that they are useless to me personally. I do not have any problem using a meter at all, and I do understand that some newbies might. All I will say is just shoot with what makes you happy. I do not really care what others think of my images, or gear, that is their problem.

the only difference between mirrorless and mirror is that one has a mirror and one has a digital finder.

if we're talking about sony specific mirrorless, their sensor technology is very advanced and it puts the mirrorless camera genre out there ahead of the competition. other mirrorless cameras, not so much. sony just has really good sensor tech right now and their cameras do great.

doesn't matter what you use, but front runner mirrorless offerings right now will probably be better for a photographer like you. you will learn more under that system than a dslr system.

>>3066442

>their sensor technology is very advanced
>worse than samsung

go figure!

i got to use a fuji x pro 2 for five minutes recently and that was all that it took to make me realize that it was superior to my dslr in most ways. better viewfinder, better construction, had direct control knobs for pretty much everything that i needed. i can't see dslrs being around as consumer cameras 10 years from now

>>3066394
>>3066408
Please elaborate, I'm game for a laugh.

>>3066423
>I don't want an evf because I can meter
>I don't want an oven because I have a fire

Stay stuck in the past gramps, p.s. food from an oven always comes out better unless you're doing super basic bitch stuff like jacket potatoes.

>>3066453
And betamax was better than vhs, irrelevant if you never really make it to market.

>>3066459
Try a sony ;)

>>3066590
Actually food does come out tastier from the grill, or even from a pit where you bury the meat with the coals, and let it cook for a day or two. You should really try it sometime kiddy. You need to get off your mommas tit while you are at it.

>>3066848
>I can cook meat with fire
Like I said, basic bitch stuff works fine, try doing a victoria sponge.

>>3066590
>p.s. food from an oven always comes out better
t. millenial addicted to cornstarch filled microwave slop

>>3067291
You're right, I do own a microwave, but I'm generation y. So it's only really used to heat up buckwheat pouches for the rabbits in winter, we keep it in the shed.

>>3067292

Generation Y is still a millennial my man.

>>3067353
in my day millenials were post 1990.

fucking millenials appropriating my culture.

>>3067354

They never were. Sorry my man.

>>3067356
Yes they were. Gen Y existed before the millenial term and originally was 1982-1990, overlapping millenials after 1990 but before 1997

do you know how generationology works?

File: S__25428011.jpg (44KB, 600x447px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x447px

>>3066013
mirror and dslr alike are both good in their own ways. don't fall into the stupid sonycuck argument of what is better. both are excellent at what they do. but they both take the same damn pictures if you know what you are doing. then it doesn't matter wtf you use.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	600
Image Height	447

>>3067478

>generationology

lmao

millennials these days.

People here love to over exaggerate about very minor things. Most hobbyist/prosumer cameras have been capable of taking good pictures for years now. If you're not a complete mongoloid, you should be able to take good pictures.

DSLR has some advantages over mirrorless, but mirrorless also offers advantages over SLR. It really depends on what you want to do.

Mirrorless cameras are also pretty young, they haven't had as much time to mature as DSLRs.

>>3067594
>Mirrorless cameras are also pretty young, they haven't had as much time to mature as DSLRs.

They've been around since literally the beginning of digital. You just haven't had the ability to change the lens until recently.

>>3066325
This.

I want a histogram in my optical viewfinder.

Nikon could use the same LCD that shows the focus points and other info, what's the problem?

>>3067599

The passive-matrix LCD that shows focus points is dramatically different from an active-matrix lcd overlay like the X100 series has.

>>3067597
Not him, but I agree they don't feel anywhere as "mature" as DSLR's.

Even if mirrorless cams get technically "better", I think I will prefer DSLR's for a long time because they feel so high quality and well developed.
It's a real joy shooting with a DSLR in a world that mostly has flimsy thin devices with shitty touchscreens. (I absolutely hate smartphones)

>>3067603
That feel is mostly a factor of the form factor. Mirrorless makers can't help but shrink the body because nomirrorbox.jpg which often leads to a less ergonomic design that's just not as comfortable to hold, especially if you're shooting larger and longer lenses and have decently large hands.

>>3067603

That's because none of the manufacturers making mirrorless cameras had never really had a serious or respected entry into the digital camera field until recently. They're mostly banking on novelty, better form factor, or both, rather than a reputation of quality. Sony, for instance, used to make the absolute worst cameras on the market for a very long time. They still do, but at least back then the sales matched the quality.

>>3067597

Sorry, I should have specified. I know mirrorless existed, but no one invested much R&D in them until recently.

The market drives engineering. If more people are switching to mirrorless, companies are going to improve upon it.

>>3067602
So?

It doesn't have to refresh at 120Hz.
The digital levels work fine, I'm not asking for better graphics than that.

>>3067605
>>3067606

I think what was lacking was professionals using mirrorless cameras and giving valuable feedback to the manufacturers.

Canon and Nikon get a lot of feedback from people who use their products for hours a day and years after years.

>>3067478
>8 years is a whole generation.

This is getting more and more retarded.

>>3067605

This is basically what I was getting at.

They were just smaller, slower SLRs before, but now they're maturing into a serious alternative, or trying to fill a niche that SLRs can't.

A mirrorless and some small primes is becoming the ideal travel kit for many people. That's a market that's harder for DSLRs to fill because they're less convenient for travel in just about every way.

>>3067611
Really though, people born through around the end of the 80s have far more in common with people born in the 70s than the 90s though.

>>3067613

lel, spot the retarded kid born in 99.

>>3067612
>A mirrorless and some small primes is becoming the ideal travel kit for many people. That's a market that's harder for DSLRs to fill because they're less convenient for travel in just about every way.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#535.582,649.437,ha,t

See gear thread for full debunking of "mirrorless=smaller", especially considering primes.

>>3067614
1982 friendo, high school class of 2000.

Electronics, computers, and the internet didn't really even start making their way into most aspects of life until the late 90s. It wasn't until the mid-aughts that cell phones started becoming ubiquitous (notably during late college/after graduation).

>>3067612
>they're less convenient for travel in just about every way.

Batteries last an age, so no need to bring a charger or loads of spares.
They are also durable as hell and can handle weather, so you can just hang them from a shoulder strap all day.

Yeah, you will lose about one boxershort worth of space if you do decide to put it in your carry-on. - big deal.

>>3067613
I'm from '78

I have nothing in common with kids who had smartphones in highschool.

>>3067619
Basically no one who was born in the 80s had smartphones in high school.

>>3067615

My mirrorless and it's primes are considerably smaller than my 60d, so my actual life experience says otherwise.

>>3067623
Post them up, let's see.

>>3067619

I was born in 88 and smartphones weren't a thing until after I graduated high school and Facebook was still for college kids.

>>3067626

http://camerasize.com/compact/#100.216,371.408,ha,t

The mirrorless lenses have a crop factor so I tried to get two lenses that were close in function. The fuji and the lens are barely longer than the 60d body alone.