Whats so special about mirrorless bodies?

johnf3f wrote in post #17056092
I certainly like the look/feel of the Sony offerings especially as they are full frame and I don't have to buy any new lenses. However the lack of a viewfinder and hopelessly slow AF would mean that they would be of little use to me except for the occasional landscape shot. I guess that I will have to struggle on with my 1 Series lump!

They have a viewfinder, it's just electronic instead of optical

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17056075
Rent an X-T1 or A7, I think you'd change your mind on that one

I'm not saying the cameras are not good. But its all marketing to create that need for people to have new systems. I was sucked into the A7 hype, but for my needs the newer system offers too many compromises and will be looking at Nikon instead. Same sensors, but proper glass lineup.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17056107
I'm not saying the cameras are not good. But its all marketing to create that need for people to have new systems. I was sucked into the A7 hype, but for my needs the newer system offers too many compromises and will be looking at Nikon instead. Same sensors, but proper glass lineup.

I considered Sony briefly too, but after looking more deeply into the system (and their lack of lenses) I agree. Fuji however has a very competent lineup and Samsung is on the rise as well. Their definitely not for every need, but they're getting there which is why I love that Fuji is focusing so heavily on the lenses first, they've had basically the same (great) sensor for a few years now, but rumored to be coming out with a new one this year. The thing I don't get about Sony is that in the year since they announced the A7 system they've launched nearly as many bodies as they have lenses... makes me scratch my head a bit.

JM Photos wrote in post #17055869
Is there something I am missing, or are these people just bored with Canon/Nikon?

My own opinion on these offerings has gone around a bit, and I'm not sure where they will end up eventually.

Background - I think in the last decade a lot of people essentially wound up with dSLRs for their 'family camera' because the limitations of digital P&S (shutter lag, slow lenses, poor high ISO, slow to focus, large DOF) were problems. So I would see a bunch of 'soccer moms' (if you will excuse the term) using dSLRs not because they love the form factor, but because they wanted the performance.

When the EVIL cameras started coming out, I thought these would take that market over. To my view, they have not. Here is why:
1) Expensive - most EVIL cameras actually cost more than a basic dSLR kit.
2) Less capable - most EVIL cameras are not as good at dSLRs for sports or theater etc. These are the exact things that drove casual family shooters to dSLRs in the first place.

So what else is there? There is the 'advanced amateur' and the pro market. The attraction of EVIL cameras for these guys is small and light. But:
1) Very limited lens selection is a hindrance. Sony is now working with three lens mounts and a super limited lens line.
2) You can mount SLR lenses, but then the size and weight advantages go out the window with the big lens on the little body.
3) If you shoot multiple genre's, and especially if you shoot sports, wildlife, action etc you are back to needing a dSLR too. It's the same problem the family shooter has.

So will EVIL cameras take off? I do not know really. At one point I thought they would replace the Rebels essentially, but now I don't think they will. So the next question is if they can replace the market for the 6D essentially.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17056115
I considered Sony briefly too, but after looking more deeply into the system (and their lack of lenses) I agree. Fuji however has a very competent lineup and Samsung is on the rise as well. Their definitely not for every need, but they're getting there which is why I love that Fuji is focusing so heavily on the lenses first, they've had basically the same (great) sensor for a few years now, but rumored to be coming out with a new one this year. The thing I don't get about Sony is that in the year since they announced the A7 system they've launched nearly as many bodies as they have lenses... makes me scratch my head a bit.

I can't invest in a system with poor battery life and limited to f/4 zooms. I haven't considered Fuji ever, while they may be great, I need my full frame and at this point mirrorless can't do what I need it to do.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17056129
o what else is there? There is the 'advanced amateur' and the pro market. The attraction of EVIL cameras for these guys is small and light. But:
1) Very limited lens selection is a hindrance. Sony is now working with three lens mounts and a super limited lens line.
2) You can mount SLR lenses, but then the size and weight advantages go out the window with the big lens on the little body.
3) If you shoot multiple genre's, and especially if you shoot sports, wildlife, action etc you are back to needing a dSLR too.

1) That completely depends on the brand, I agree, Sony is lacking (they have a lot of lenses, most of them aren't very interesting for an enthusiast), Fuji and m43s are definitely not lacking though...

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i906.photobucke​t.com …-2013-2014_1378468775.jpg

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17056141
I can't invest in a system with poor battery life and limited to f/4 zooms. I haven't considered Fuji ever, while they may be great, I need my full frame and at this point mirrorless can't do what I need it to do.

I imagine for your car shots you do some pretty large prints, so I could see it being an issue with resolution, but for anything else I can't imagine how you'd need more IQ than what the latest X-Trans offers. At base ISO images from my 6D and Fuji are very similar, even with the same lens, and pretty much always the colors are better out of the Fuji with less manipulation. They also have a battery grip for the X-T1 which triples it's battery life (still not ideal since you can't quick swap it unless you have another grip). The battery life has never been an issue for me though, I buy the Wasabi Power batteries and carry a spare with me whenever I use the Fuji, I have yet to use more than 2 in a day though.

As for the zooms, that I can also understand. I don't really use zooms other than for leisure convenience or stuido work, so for me that's never been an issue.

I really do think mirrorless will take off.

Being lighter is just an advantage.
No mirror to flap means they can manage very fast fps.
No mirror to flap for AF means they can (if image sensor allows faster readout) do AF while doing crazy fps.
Having smaller/lighter normal/wide lenses is an advantage - similar to Leica.
With a bit more EVF maturity, we can get night vision (in good color) in the viewfinder + focus hints + exposure hits.
And we could potentially get an infinite number of AF points, with in-camera face recognition moving the AF points to always stay over eyes. Instead of switching between 60+ AF points we use "face mode" and just switch between the three faces in the image.

Lighter camera doesn't matter much when the tele lens is huge and fast. But at least sports shooters tends to run around with 3-4 cameras. So less weight to carry if the cameras with the wider lenses are closer to half the weight.

There are obviously not just advantages with mirrorless, but they have enough advantages that I do see lots of movements to them.

I use mirrorless to have DSLR IQ/ISO without the size & weight.

I can pack my Samsung NX300 (1.5x APSC), 45 f1.8, 30 f2, 12-24, and 16-50pz in the same space as a 60d and 24-70. Makes it much more enjoyable to carry around and use. I lose something in AF speed/tracking for faster moving things, but I don't sacrifice IQ or flexibility (lenses to carry with/swap).

I didn't replace my Canon gear, just supplemented it with a mirrorless option.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17056156
I imagine for your car shots you do some pretty large prints, so I could see it being an issue with resolution, but for anything else I can't imagine how you'd need more IQ than what the latest X-Trans offers. At base ISO images from my 6D and Fuji are very similar, even with the same lens, and pretty much always the colors are better out of the Fuji with less manipulation. They also have a battery grip for the X-T1 which triples it's battery life (still not ideal since you can't quick swap it unless you have another grip). The battery life has never been an issue for me though, I buy the Wasabi Power batteries and carry a spare with me whenever I use the Fuji, I have yet to use more than 2 in a day though.

As for the zooms, that I can also understand. I don't really use zooms other than for leisure convenience or stuido work, so for me that's never been an issue.

I'm all about detail and dynamic range. My comment about battery and zooms was directed towards Sony as thats the other brand I was considering.

While Fuji may have solid lenses and sensors, I could never use anything less than full frame. Thats just me though. The performance I get from my sensor is key to the way I shoot and subsequently edit. I'm very aggressive on my files in post and crop from my experience does not do it for me. Not saying crop is bad at all, but for me personally I couldn't do it. Then the whole shallow depth of field etc etc etc. FF is crucial for what I do and now Im feeling that I need even more DR to extract the most out of what I do. We dont always have the perfect light or the ability to use lighting. Nikon will fit that bill along with a solid lens lineup. I will still keep my Canon cause the 50L is too damn nice In the future would love to add a nice mirrorless FF system, but for now I cant do it.

Everything you can do with a DSLR in a lighter and smaller package. My 1.4 and 1.2 Fujinon lenses exhibits little to no CA wide open.

My X-T1 + 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, and 56mm 1.2 cost me ~$4000.
My 5DIII + 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2 cost me almost $8000

The Fuji and all 3 lenses fit in one small Bilingham bag and I can carry it all day with minimal fatigue. It also has the best EVF compared to current mirrorless cameras on the market. I don't miss my optical viewfinder because I can preview my depth of field accurately and its bokehlicous goodness before even snapping a photo.

JM Photos wrote in post #17055903
Hmm, seems to me like the hipster way of photography. They wanna be original so they buy the Olympus or Panasonic. That's just a first thought though.

If you don't understand it, label it "hipster!"

Really, as has been mentioned but may have been lost in other noise, one of the big advantages is the short flange distance, which opens up the possibility of a lot of lenses, many of which have different rendering characteristics than what's typically available with an EOS mount. And, preemptively, no - "differing rendering characteristics" does not mean emulating some god-forsaken Instagram filters.

WhyFi wrote in post #17056226
If you don't understand it, label it "hipster!"

Really, as has been mentioned but may have been lost in other noise, one of the big advantages is the short flange distance, which opens up the possibility of a lot of lenses, many of which have different rendering characteristics than what's typically available with an EOS mount. And, preemptively, no - "differing rendering characteristics" does not mean emulating some god-forsaken Instagram filters.

+1

I think he was referring to the look, as many has a retro film camera look (e.g. Leica, Fuji)

short flange distance is the biggest advantage for mirrorless. Anyone seen the tilt shift kit for 14-24 + a7r? that's pretty damn ground breaking if the IQ holds up. I cant even describe the shock and awe of such a setup. Shifting @14mm through 24mm..... that's turning my world upside down.

It's the size and no mirror issue for me, having a tiny camera lets me take it to more places and not have everyone within 30 feet staring at this huge thing.

With no mirror in the way I can use all my FD glass, as well as virtually any other lens. I was even able to take a F.Zuiko 35mm 2.8 from a Olympus XA and slap it on. The lens only sticks out 3/4" from the flange, it's that thin.

I haven't even used my DSLR since getting my mirrorless.

JM Photos wrote in post #17055903
Hmm, seems to me like the hipster way of photography. They wanna be original so they buy the Olympus or Panasonic. That's just a first thought though.

A totally wrong thought at that. I have two mirrorless cameras, and not one was purchased to be hipster. My Fuji X100 was purchased to allow me to take a camera with me everywhere I go whether that is X-country skiing, doing a 100k road ride or on my business trips. Light, compact and produces amazing photos...that is why I got the X100.

I got the Sony A7R as my landscape camera for it's megapixels and great dynamic range sensor...and especially for it's ability to use all my Canon lenses.

You even thinking people would purchase a camera to look good leaves some doubt in my mind as to why you even carry a camera with you.