Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 24 Jun 2015 (Wednesday) 14:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Mirrorless vs EOS DSLR - Picture quality comparison?

 
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,988 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 612
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Jun 26, 2015 16:53 |  #16

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17611639 (external link)
go check out the a6000. focus and tracks just as well as a 7d2 camera

Are you sure? No Sony DSLR comes near the 7D2 AF, VERY few Nikons do yet the a6000 does? I must have a look at this minor miracle.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jonneymendoza
Goldmember
3,776 posts
Likes: 353
Joined Apr 2008
Post edited over 3 years ago by jonneymendoza.
     
Jun 26, 2015 17:48 |  #17

johnf3f wrote in post #17611701 (external link)
Are you sure? No Sony DSLR comes near the 7D2 AF, VERY few Nikons do yet the a6000 does? I must have a look at this minor miracle.

My bad i meant the old 7d actually.

if i was to rate the 7d2/idx id say they are a 9/10 in af while the a6000 is an 8/10 and the a7s is a 7/10.

the sony a7 series are really not far off.

the a7r2 might be as good as the a6000 native or with canon adapted lenses.

If thats the case, the gap between a DSLR is shrinking day by day and besides brand loyalty and having large hands, there soon wont be a reason not to own a mirrorless over a DSLR.

give it another 2-3 years and mirrorless will not just match a 1d series camera. but surpass it in every way


Canon 5dmkIII | Canon 85L 1.2 | Sigma 35mm ART 1.4|Canon 16-35mm L 2.8 |Canon 24-70mm L f2.8 | Canon 70-200mm F2.8L MK2 | Canon 430EX MK2 Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,988 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 612
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Jun 27, 2015 18:30 as a reply to  @ jonneymendoza's post |  #18

Interesting!
When I tried the A7R I was worried about my age when trying out the AF with Canon lenses! Manual focus seemed lightening fast in comparison.With Sony lenses it was MUCH quicker but still hopelessly slow.
I think we are looking at vastly different parameters here. The best DSLR cameras that Sony produce have barely adequate AF compared to Canons and Nikons of 10 years ago.
I agree that mirrorless will catch up with DSLR cameras - but in 2/3 years????? They are still a way behind my manual focus Canon A1 - they have a VERY VERY long way to go before being considered as adequate.

I am quite puzzled at your comment about "give it another 2-3 years and mirrorless will not just match a 1d series camera. but surpass it in every way"?? Have you actually used a 1 series? Have you tried the "Old" Canon 20 D or Nikon D70? These are lightening quick compared to the VERY best od the mirrorless offerings.
A Mirrorless camera simply cannot compete (in the AF deportment) with a DSLR until they get rid of the EVF and introduce a proper OVF with a mirror that will allow you to see where your subject actually is not where it was a little while ago.

If you are shooting landscapes then there is NO disadvantage in using a top quality Mirrorless camera, for portraits (with a professional model who knows how to freeze) they are just the job, but back in the real world they are limited - to say the least.

Whilst I do a lot of general photography I am primarily a wildlife photographer. For general photography I have found the best mirroless cameras (that I have tried) to be severely limiting, for wildlife they are simply a bad joke! Yes they will catch up and possibly exceed a decent DSLR but not until they get rid of the EVF, have a proper TTL viewfinder and AF that doesn't make me worry about my pension! Oh dear that is a DSLR?!?!?


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jun 27, 2015 19:18 |  #19

johnf3f wrote in post #17612689 (external link)
If you are shooting landscapes then there is NO disadvantage in using a top quality Mirrorless camera, for portraits (with a professional model who knows how to freeze) they are just the job, but back in the real world they are limited - to say the least.

The vast majority of real-world photography isn't action photography. There are many more people shooting landscapes, architecture, product photography, studio work, macro work, technical photography and event photography than there are people shooting sports. Just that sports and action photographers are the most visible, since they're out shooting in big public events, not hidden away in a studio or a wilderness somewhere.

I know a number of wedding and event photographers who have moved over to Sony mirrorless cameras entirely. They focus more than fast enough for the job and they appreciate the added dynamic range (compared to Canon) and the video features (compared to Nikon).

Whilst I do a lot of general photography I am primarily a wildlife photographer. For general photography I have found the best mirroless cameras (that I have tried) to be severely limiting, for wildlife they are simply a bad joke! Yes they will catch up and possibly exceed a decent DSLR but not until they get rid of the EVF, have a proper TTL viewfinder and AF that doesn't make me worry about my pension! Oh dear that is a DSLR?!?!?

Ever used an EVF in a modern video camera? Viewfinder lag of only a few milliseconds (many times faster than mirror lag on an SLR, and so fast as to be imperceptible when viewing the event and the screen at the same time), with all the advantages of an EVF (real-time exposure simulation, more information displayed on screen, etc.).

The problem is processor speed and power. Mirrorless cameras so far have concentrated on being small almost at the expense of everything else. This means small batteries, which means slow processors and increased viewfinder lag, as well as slow AF (not enough power to drive fast AF processors, nor enough power to move heavy lenses at high speed).

Make a mirrorless camera the size of a 5D and put a proper battery in it (with the space saved by excluding a mirror box and pentaprism, you could probably put a 1D battery in the same space as a 5D SLR body) and you could make a fast-focusing mirrorless camera with almost no viewfinder lag. But then, you'd no longer have the selling point of it being 'small'.

I hope this is the direction Sony is pursuing with the A9 - after all, that's supposed to be for full professional use (which, I would assume, includes all professional uses, not just the non-action ones).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
don1163
Goldmember
Avatar
1,000 posts
Gallery: 27 photos
Likes: 1793
Joined May 2015
Location: Washford, Somerset/ UK
     
Jun 27, 2015 19:22 |  #20

MalVeauX wrote in post #17611336 (external link)
Heya,

My mirrorless shares nearly the same sensor as a few of my dSLR's. And I have APS-C, Full Frame & APS-H, along with an APS-C mirrorless. o

That doesn't really make sense does it...
Can't be nearly the same as APS-C ,Full frame and APS-H..
In fact it can't be 'nearly' the same as any DSLR sensor, its either the same or different...


1DX, 500L f4, 70-200L f2.8II, 100L f2.8 macro ,16-35 f4, 1.4xIII, Metz 64-AF1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,264 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2346
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jun 27, 2015 23:50 |  #21

WebDevGuy wrote in post #17609376 (external link)
Great thoughts!

Wondering if mirrorless cameras will ever get to the point where I can ditch the bigger DSLR and not sacrifice anything in terms of picture quality, etc.... Maybe a matter of "when", versus "if".

Well, if you continue to believe the fact revealed years ago, a sensor gets warm/hot with continuous energizing (such as Live View) so it gets noisier images than a sensor which is only energized at the moment of exposure. How does a mirrorless camera get around that?!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,988 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 612
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Jun 28, 2015 16:35 |  #22

Shadowblade wrote in post #17612726 (external link)
The vast majority of real-world photography isn't action photography. There are many more people shooting landscapes, architecture, product photography, studio work, macro work, technical photography and event photography than there are people shooting sports. Just that sports and action photographers are the most visible, since they're out shooting in big public events, not hidden away in a studio or a wilderness somewhere.

I know a number of wedding and event photographers who have moved over to Sony mirrorless cameras entirely. They focus more than fast enough for the job and they appreciate the added dynamic range (compared to Canon) and the video features (compared to Nikon).

Ever used an EVF in a modern video camera? Viewfinder lag of only a few milliseconds (many times faster than mirror lag on an SLR, and so fast as to be imperceptible when viewing the event and the screen at the same time), with all the advantages of an EVF (real-time exposure simulation, more information displayed on screen, etc.).

The problem is processor speed and power. Mirrorless cameras so far have concentrated on being small almost at the expense of everything else. This means small batteries, which means slow processors and increased viewfinder lag, as well as slow AF (not enough power to drive fast AF processors, nor enough power to move heavy lenses at high speed).

Make a mirrorless camera the size of a 5D and put a proper battery in it (with the space saved by excluding a mirror box and pentaprism, you could probably put a 1D battery in the same space as a 5D SLR body) and you could make a fast-focusing mirrorless camera with almost no viewfinder lag. But then, you'd no longer have the selling point of it being 'small'.

I hope this is the direction Sony is pursuing with the A9 - after all, that's supposed to be for full professional use (which, I would assume, includes all professional uses, not just the non-action ones).

Interesting points but as I mentioned I primarily shoot wildlife, as do quite a high proportion of local photographers around here. Additionally I have yet to hear of/see a wedding photographer using such a camera, though I suppose there must be some somewhere? The most common camera I see in the hands of wedding photographers is the 5D3, though I have seen some Nikon D750 and 800/810 cameras as well.

I have not used the EVF of a modern Video Camera, I can't remember using an old one either - don't shoot video. However I have used the A7R and A7 = no thanks. I agree that mirrorless cameras have been made small at the expense of other functionality and my custom! To me the EVF lag is noticeable, though this has improved in recent years. The problems with EVFs in certain lighting conditions has got better too - but still not there yet.

As I stated there is no IQ difference between the two systems (other than sensors and software used) the difference is in the speed and functionality. I agree that this does not matter to some but even the most dedicated landscape/architecture may want to take the occasional image of their dog running after a ball/kids running about? I looked carefully at the Sony A7s as landscape cameras (where speed is of no consequence) and as a backup where reasonable responsiveness would be nice - nothing special just something like a decent 20/25 year old film SLR, it wasn't to be.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jun 28, 2015 17:02 |  #23

johnf3f wrote in post #17613656 (external link)
Interesting points but as I mentioned I primarily shoot wildlife, as do quite a high proportion of local photographers around here. Additionally I have yet to hear of/see a wedding photographer using such a camera, though I suppose there must be some somewhere? The most common camera I see in the hands of wedding photographers is the 5D3, though I have seen some Nikon D750 and 800/810 cameras as well.

Mostly seeing D800/D810/D4/D4s around here. 5D/1D systems seem to be getting less common every time I look. Thing about weddings is that some venues can be tough on low light AF, but not on speed and accuracy.

I have not used the EVF of a modern Video Camera, I can't remember using an old one either - don't shoot video. However I have used the A7R and A7 = no thanks. I agree that mirrorless cameras have been made small at the expense of other functionality and my custom! To me the EVF lag is noticeable, though this has improved in recent years. The problems with EVFs in certain lighting conditions has got better too - but still not there yet.

That's because the A7r EVF is terrible for anything that moves - the EVF lag is in the order of 100-200ms or so. It's better than any OVF for nonmoving subjects, though.

Give it a bigger battery and a faster processor and it would be fantastic - <35ms lag is essentially unnoticeable.

As for shooting in the dark, I find that, if I can't see it through the EVF, I can't see it through an OVF either.

As I stated there is no IQ difference between the two systems (other than sensors and software used) the difference is in the speed and functionality. I agree that this does not matter to some but even the most dedicated landscape/architecture may want to take the occasional image of their dog running after a ball/kids running about?

Which are probably harder on AF than most sports and wildlife, since the subject distance is closer and the distance and speed the glass needs to move is greater.

In any case, with regards to its function as a landscape/architecture camera, would you try to shoot a running dog with a large format/617 format technical camera or a MFDB? Of course not. Those are all fine non-action cameras. But you'd use a different camera for action. Same thing here. Sure, it'd be nice if they improved the AF to the point where you could use it to shoot action as well. But that doesn't detract from its utility as a non-action stills body.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,264 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2346
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by Wilt.
     
Jun 28, 2015 18:55 as a reply to  @ johnf3f's post |  #24

...I found another very disturbing feature of the EVF, if you look at a scene illuminated with fluorescent light, there is a pronounced 'shimmer' which distracts and interferes with the assessment of focus accuracy.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,731 posts
Likes: 2002
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jun 28, 2015 20:39 |  #25

johnf3f wrote in post #17613656 (external link)
...Additionally I have yet to hear of/see a wedding photographer using such a camera, though I suppose there must be some somewhere? ...

I have been to two weddings where mirrorless cameras were used. My daughters photographer used a Fuji and my niece's just last month a Sony. They are out there.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,954 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1596
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jun 29, 2015 10:04 |  #26

EVF's in Video cameras, modern or old, are completely irrelevant to stills cameras. In video the feed for the EVF is captured directly from the live video feed, that is the finished product. Once you have found a moving subject in the EVF tracking becomes no harder than tracking in "real time" through an OVF. What the EVF is seeing is what is being captured. All that happens is that you effectively lead the subject when shooting video through the EVF, by whatever amount is necessary to frame your subject correctly. Being honest, if the subject can change direction quickly enough to lose them with an EVF, you would probably lose them in an OVF too.

EVFs on a still camera, have the big draw back that to the delay from the video feed, you have to also add the time it takes to switch from running the EVF in video mode, flush the system, set the shutter and then make the exposure. Comparing the delay from pressing the shutter to starting the exposure in a DSLR, when using the OVF or liveview, the delays are around ten times longer. around 10-20 ms for the OVF, compared to around 250 ms in LV. Oh, and that's not accounting for any delay in recording and processing the feed to the LV display.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but hell would have to freeze over before I would want to use a stills camera with only an EVF. Actually even LV in my little home studio is useless, as my 50D will not trigger my studio flash system in LV mode. There was me thinking I had finally found a use for LV, when doing some product shots.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,264 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2346
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by Wilt.
     
Jun 29, 2015 11:51 |  #27

So let's go back to the topic for which this thread is titled..picture quality.

It is probably safe to say that we have drifted to ancillary characteristics like viewfinder lag or shimmer simply because the group of sensors in EVF is generally no different than the group of sensors in mirrored cameras...size of sensor differences existed 10 years ago -- before the EVF replaced the optical viewfinder. Sensor noise difference existed (such as Nikon noisy high ISO vs. Canon relatively noise-free high ISO) 10 years ago, too -- also before EVF.

One has to wonder WHY there could be ANY IQ differences at all, apart from operational considerations we have drifted to, in the consideration of EVF vs. optical viewfinder.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jun 29, 2015 16:01 |  #28

BigAl007 wrote in post #17614365 (external link)
EVF's in Video cameras, modern or old, are completely irrelevant to stills cameras. In video the feed for the EVF is captured directly from the live video feed, that is the finished product. Once you have found a moving subject in the EVF tracking becomes no harder than tracking in "real time" through an OVF. What the EVF is seeing is what is being captured. All that happens is that you effectively lead the subject when shooting video through the EVF, by whatever amount is necessary to frame your subject correctly. Being honest, if the subject can change direction quickly enough to lose them with an EVF, you would probably lose them in an OVF too.

EVFs on a still camera, have the big draw back that to the delay from the video feed, you have to also add the time it takes to switch from running the EVF in video mode, flush the system, set the shutter and then make the exposure. Comparing the delay from pressing the shutter to starting the exposure in a DSLR, when using the OVF or liveview, the delays are around ten times longer. around 10-20 ms for the OVF, compared to around 250 ms in LV. Oh, and that's not accounting for any delay in recording and processing the feed to the LV display.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but hell would have to freeze over before I would want to use a stills camera with only an EVF. Actually even LV in my little home studio is useless, as my 50D will not trigger my studio flash system in LV mode. There was me thinking I had finally found a use for LV, when doing some product shots.

Alan

Don't think I've used an OVF for anything other than wildlife since the 5D2 came out in 2008 - since then it's all been EVF or (usually) live view on the rear LCD.

Then again, prior to that, I used a lot of ground glass on technical cameras.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,279 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jun 29, 2015 16:16 |  #29

WebDevGuy wrote in post #17609376 (external link)
Great thoughts!

Wondering if mirrorless cameras will ever get to the point where I can ditch the bigger DSLR and not sacrifice anything in terms of picture quality, etc.... Maybe a matter of "when", versus "if".

Wait for Fuji 100-400 f5.6, hope it is out early next yr. Picture quality is quite good and AF once you configure the camera is not bad. Haven't yet tried the new 4.00 firmware. I wouldn't look at point & shoot big zooms.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DanC.Licks
Member
Avatar
229 posts
Likes: 64
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Mauerbach, Austria
Post edited over 3 years ago by DanC.Licks.
     
Jul 01, 2015 01:11 |  #30

About a year and a half ago I bought a 5DII with a 400/5.6L on it and an Olympus E-M1 at the same time. After a couple of months of testing and trying, I sold the Canon and have used the E-M1 extensively ever since, a lot of the time with the Canon 400 (which I LOVE) on it. I often have it mounted on my high quality 600mm telescope (extremely sharp!). Here are the results of a test series comparing the two from the same standpoint. Both converted from raw in LR with no other processing. Both are the best of 10 exposures. Distance, about 30 meters.

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7453/12921318314_8ef640478d_b.jpg

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3774/12921010563_f3c4d311fa_b.jpg



I do a LOT of testing, "real world" and ISO 12233 chart, as a way to find out what the strong points and the limitations are of what I will be using, and I do it very carefully and replete the tests several times to make sure what I see is in fact really the way things are. The bottom line is that the E-M1 knocks the socks off the 5DII for what I need. Combined with the Canon 400 it is stunning, albeit only MF and wide open.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


A friend of mine has a Nikon P900. From what I have seen it is great for what it is, a true LBJ (Little Brown Jobbie) camera for birds, good enough for ID and travel/fun, but it lacks in punch and is a bit noisy, as would be expected from such a tiny 16MP sensor. Also no raw. I think they don't want people to see how week the raw files really are and they have done amazing things with their jpg conversion. In good light it can deliver, and the zoom range and image stabilization are impressive.

But for me the 4/3 crop is the best compromise. I have also tested the E-M1 against a 7D II (same 400/5.6 lens), and the E-M1 is the clear winner in terms of crispness and clarity. Just wish my 400/5.6 could AF....;-)a



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,511 views & 0 likes for this thread
Mirrorless vs EOS DSLR - Picture quality comparison?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MailManX
539 guests, 395 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.