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 General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 30 Sep 2017 (Saturday) 14:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Switching from DSLR to mirrorless

 
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,619 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4907
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 28, 2017 14:15 |  #31

Wilt wrote in post #18505807 (external link)
As has been revealed a number of times already, 'compact and lightweight' very well applies to the description of the body ALONE,
but after you mount the appropriate lens on the body, the total distance from back of body to front of lens often ends up longer for the mirrorless camera.

there may be a handful of lenses that are the exception to the rules, but implying that mirrorless is similar in size with comparable dslr setups is false.

I have a compact kit as well as a heavy kit. DSLR's have no compact kits.... and of course the body matters too. Compare the A9 vs 1Dx. Now multiply by two if you're an event/dual body shooter.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,232 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2034
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 7 months ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Nov 28, 2017 14:24 as a reply to  @ Charlie's post |  #32

My point exactly, that size/weight are not the reasons for the switch to FF mirrorless (vs FF dSLR). Size and weight are the reason for switching to micro 4/3 format.

There are other reasons to consider mirrorless, which are real and valid pros. Having to sum six lenses in order to arrive at 16 oz. of benefit is hardly a reason. Sony's own product information does not mention any size/weight advantage for the A9.

A few months ago I had calculated what a FF dSLR kit with lenses weighed vs. the FF mirrorless kit. In specifically discussing the new Sony A9, I had determined that if you buy same FL and same max aperture in FF mirrorless or FF dSLR, there will be little benefit in lens size...only 2 of six lenses were shorter than the Canon lens equivalent. In overall kit weight you save only about 10% in weight of mirrorless FF vs. dSLR FF sensor when the kit had comparable same 6 lenses in both kits.


https://petapixel.com …mirrorless-fatal-mistake/ (external link)

One truly has a size advantage if one goes from FF dSLR to an APS-C mirrorless or 4/3 format mirrorless, as the needed FL are proportionately shorter for the same AOV.


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
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,101 posts
Likes: 383
Joined Aug 2009
Post edited 7 months ago by mike_d.
     
Nov 28, 2017 14:40 |  #33

Wilt wrote in post #18506027 (external link)
My point exactly, that size/weight are not the reasons for the switch to FF mirrorless (vs FF dSLR). Size and weight are the reason for switching to micro 4/3 format.

There are other reasons to consider mirrorless, which are real and valid pros. Having to sum six lenses in order to arrive at 16 oz. of benefit is hardly a reason. Sony's own product information does not mention any size/weight advantage for the A9.

A few months ago I had calculated what a FF dSLR kit with lenses weighed vs. the FF mirrorless kit. In specifically discussing the new Sony A9, I had determined that if you buy same FL and same max aperture in FF mirrorless or FF dSLR, there will be little benefit in lens size...only 2 of six lenses were shorter than the Canon lens equivalent. In overall kit weight you save only about 10% in weight of mirrorless FF vs. dSLR FF sensor when the kit had comparable same 6 lenses in both kits.

One truly has a size advantage if one goes from FF dSLR to an APS-C mirrorless or 4/3 format mirrorless, as the needed FL are proportionately shorter for the same AOV.

Even on APS-C, the differences aren't that great when you start to talk about longer and/or faster lenses. That's before you consider than an f/2.8 lens on APS-C is more like an f/4 lens on full frame. For example, the Fuji 50-140 is smaller and lighter than the Canon 70-200 2.8 but bigger and heavier than the f/4 version which its aperture more directly compares to.

Sony's full frame zooms are just as big and heavy as Canon or Nikons which is why I've never considered them. I've owned a Fuji and it's a nice system for many applications, but you can't cheat physics. If you need the light gathering capability of a large sensor, you'll need a big piece of glass in front of it.


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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,561 posts
Gallery: 127 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4219
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 28, 2017 15:15 |  #34

Wilt wrote in post #18506027 (external link)
My point exactly, that size/weight are not the reasons for the switch to FF mirrorless (vs FF dSLR). Size and weight are the reason for switching to micro 4/3 format.

There are other reasons to consider mirrorless, which are real and valid pros. Having to sum six lenses in order to arrive at 16 oz. of benefit is hardly a reason. Sony's own product information does not mention any size/weight advantage for the A9.

A few months ago I had calculated what a FF dSLR kit with lenses weighed vs. the FF mirrorless kit. In specifically discussing the new Sony A9, I had determined that if you buy same FL and same max aperture in FF mirrorless or FF dSLR, there will be little benefit in lens size...only 2 of six lenses were shorter than the Canon lens equivalent. In overall kit weight you save only about 10% in weight of mirrorless FF vs. dSLR FF sensor when the kit had comparable same 6 lenses in both kits.


https://petapixel.com …mirrorless-fatal-mistake/ (external link)

One truly has a size advantage if one goes from FF dSLR to an APS-C mirrorless or 4/3 format mirrorless, as the needed FL are proportionately shorter for the same AOV.

If money isn't an option the new Leica M 10 is a lot smaller as are Leica M lenses. Not a lot lighter though.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,101 posts
Likes: 383
Joined Aug 2009
     
Nov 28, 2017 15:21 |  #35

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18506081 (external link)
If money isn't an option the new Leica M 10 is a lot smaller as are Leica M lenses. Not a lot lighter though.

How's the AF tracking?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,619 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4907
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 28, 2017 15:24 |  #36

Wilt wrote in post #18506027 (external link)
My point exactly, that size/weight are not the reasons for the switch to FF mirrorless (vs FF dSLR). Size and weight are the reason for switching to micro 4/3 format.

There are other reasons to consider mirrorless, which are real and valid pros. Having to sum six lenses in order to arrive at 16 oz. of benefit is hardly a reason. Sony's own product information does not mention any size/weight advantage for the A9.

A few months ago I had calculated what a FF dSLR kit with lenses weighed vs. the FF mirrorless kit. In specifically discussing the new Sony A9, I had determined that if you buy same FL and same max aperture in FF mirrorless or FF dSLR, there will be little benefit in lens size...only 2 of six lenses were shorter than the Canon lens equivalent. In overall kit weight you save only about 10% in weight of mirrorless FF vs. dSLR FF sensor when the kit had comparable same 6 lenses in both kits.


https://petapixel.com …mirrorless-fatal-mistake/ (external link)

One truly has a size advantage if one goes from FF dSLR to an APS-C mirrorless or 4/3 format mirrorless, as the needed FL are proportionately shorter for the same AOV.

it may not be for you, but I can shoot my A7rii + FE 35 all day, and do most of the time. If you really want a small kit, you can certainly source one, but seeing that you linked the petapixel clickbait, you're not really interested in honest answers. Your "kit" assumption, assumes that one must carry more than one lens at once amiright? For the most part, I dont need more than one lens for most of my shooting.

What you hand pick for kit comparisons, may not ring true for others. I travel with two bodies, in the past, a 5D and 6D. That alone would put me over 400+ grams, AND not as feature rich, not to mention the volume included is significant, especially to bystanders who may be photographed.

Everyone has a different shooting scenario, and please find me an alternative to the A7rii + FE 35, my daily carry. My second most used is the A7rii + Voigtlander 35 F1.7 + TAP adapter for AF.

My micro kit can fit into the ILC50 by lowepro, and I clip on my belt. My medium sized kit with the voigtlander can fit into the think tank digital holster 5, clipped onto belt.

A 5D series body alone, without lens, would not fit into either of the bags. So you can pretend that the size doesnt matter, and it may not to you, but it certainly does matter. For some folks, even the A7rii + FE 35 is TOO BIG, so they may shoot with a high end point and shoot like the RX 100. Before going to mirrorless, I was a daily DLSR carrying shooter, my small kit is dramatically smaller. Sometimes when I shoot events with fast primes, then only 2/3 primes would be significantly smaller than DSLR equivalents. Sometimes I use my 2.8 zooms, and size savings is even less. Carry out the 600, and the lens weighs much more than the body that it makes little difference what's mounted to the lens.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,561 posts
Gallery: 127 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4219
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
Post edited 7 months ago by airfrogusmc.
     
Nov 28, 2017 15:33 |  #37

mike_d wrote in post #18506087 (external link)
How's the AF tracking?




Perfect. Working DoF scales ROCK. I will never go back to auto focus.

Didn't know AF was necessary to making great photographs. Oh yeah thats right it's not.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
intence01
Member
144 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2011
Post edited 7 months ago by intence01. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 01, 2017 01:55 |  #38

Which 35mm FE? On the Sony platform the 35mm 2.8 FE is a great small option, but as soon as you want larger apertures such as 1.4 or better, than lenses become massive and don't balance well with the camera IMO. It's still 2.8, and Sony doesn't have a compact 35mm f2 or better with AF. The best you can do is the 28mm f2 or 55mm 1.8

I tried Sony and now am considering coming back to Canon. The Sony body is smaller and a few hundred grams lighter, but:

-Camera takes a few seconds to "wake up", extremely annoying if it went to sleep and you want to grab a quick shot
-Eats through batteries
-Add a flash and larger lenses and your size/weight advantage disappears.
-While the WYSIWG ability of the viewfinder is nice, the electronic viewfinder isn't the same as optical
-Sony lenses are stupid expensive

Not saying it's a bad system, but know the pros and cons. Fuji has a great system, small with smallish lenses, great build quality etc. If you're okay with crop, that's the direction i'd lean. The XPro-2 has a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder and their jpg/film simulations are great.

I know Sony has the best DR, best specs, etc. but I just don't love shooting with it. As others have mentioned it feels more like a computer than camera. Fuji is great and even with the hybrid viewfinder has nice ergonomics, size, etc.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,619 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4907
Joined Sep 2007
     
Dec 01, 2017 13:26 |  #39

intence01 wrote in post #18507997 (external link)
Which 35mm FE? On the Sony platform the 35mm 2.8 FE is a great small option, but as soon as you want larger apertures such as 1.4 or better, than lenses become massive and don't balance well with the camera IMO. It's still 2.8, and Sony doesn't have a compact 35mm f2 or better with AF. The best you can do is the 28mm f2 or 55mm 1.8

I tried Sony and now am considering coming back to Canon. The Sony body is smaller and a few hundred grams lighter, but:

-Camera takes a few seconds to "wake up", extremely annoying if it went to sleep and you want to grab a quick shot
-Eats through batteries
-Add a flash and larger lenses and your size/weight advantage disappears.
-While the WYSIWG ability of the viewfinder is nice, the electronic viewfinder isn't the same as optical
-Sony lenses are stupid expensive

Not saying it's a bad system, but know the pros and cons. Fuji has a great system, small with smallish lenses, great build quality etc. If you're okay with crop, that's the direction i'd lean. The XPro-2 has a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder and their jpg/film simulations are great.

I know Sony has the best DR, best specs, etc. but I just don't love shooting with it. As others have mentioned it feels more like a computer than camera. Fuji is great and even with the hybrid viewfinder has nice ergonomics, size, etc.

you've listed the 28f2, 35 f2.8, and 55 f1.8

what does the Canon DSLR equivalent look like?
28mm f1.8 USM is much bigger and heavier, no IS
50mm f1.8 STM is smaller and lighter. It's also not optically close, no IS
40mm STM, while the lens is technically smaller, it weighs about the same I think, doesnt have IS
35mm F2 IS, that's the lens you want, faster aperture, much bigger, then that's what you should shoot then.

when it comes to Fuji,I'll just say that they dont have a monopoly on small lenses. Many lenses wont compete head to head with a FE lens, and consider the IBIS factor, and sony pulls ahead with comparable lenses. The 16 f1.4, 23 f2, 35 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 16-55 f2.8, 50-140 f2.8 all have something in common. They're either bigger and/or heavier than the FE equivalent. Both brands do offer unique lenses that the other may not have an answer to. Both brands offer small lenses that in combination with camera, offer significant size and weight savings. Sony is generally quite a bit more expensive.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mickeyb105
Goldmember
Avatar
2,445 posts
Gallery: 346 photos
Likes: 1305
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Vero Beach, FL
     
Dec 12, 2017 10:49 |  #40

Wilt wrote in post #18505807 (external link)
As has been revealed a number of times already, 'compact and lightweight' very well applies to the description of the body ALONE,
but after you mount the appropriate lens on the body, the total distance from back of body to front of lens often ends up longer for the mirrorless camera.

I think you were thinking of the a9 line and not the a99ii . . . the a99ii is an a-mount body, and it noticeably smaller/lighter than the competing 5Div and D8xx series.


Sony A99ii, RX-100ii, Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA, Minolta HS 200 2.8 APO, Zeiss 24/2 ZA, Minolta 2xTC APO, HVL-F43M
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,232 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2034
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 7 months ago by Wilt. (8 edits in all)
     
Dec 12, 2017 12:02 |  #41

mickeyb105 wrote in post #18516136 (external link)
I think you were thinking of the a9 line and not the a99ii . . . the a99ii is an a-mount body, and it noticeably smaller/lighter than the competing 5Div and D8xx series.


We need not get into any extended debates. I will simply make this point about comparative sizes of FF dSLR vs. FF mirrorless:


  • Sony A99V 810g,
    Sony A99-II 849g
    Canon 6DII 765g
  • Sony A99V 147L × 111.2H × 78.4D mm,
    Sony A99-II 142.6L x 104.2H x 76.1D mm
    Canon 6DII 144L x 110.5H x 74.8D mm

  • Sony 28-75mm f/2.8 Sony specifies 3-1/8 " diameter x 3-3/4" extension from flange.
  • Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Manufacturer Spec Size 2.87" diam x 3.62”


I see no clearcut intrinsic advantage.

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
mickeyb105
Goldmember
Avatar
2,445 posts
Gallery: 346 photos
Likes: 1305
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Vero Beach, FL
     
Dec 12, 2017 22:24 as a reply to  @ Wilt's post |  #42

What an interesting comparison.

I wonder if any a99ii shooters would really use that Sony 28-70 for their 42mp sensor? Tamron made that 28-70 in a-mount, IIRC.

A99ii shooters probably never considered the 6Dii, and 6Dii shooters probably never considered the a99ii.

The Sony's ability to stabilize all lenses is something Canon an Nikon don't offer in DSLR bodies. No tripod (extra bulk and weight) needed to shoot 1/30 SS with a fast 135.


Sony A99ii, RX-100ii, Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA, Minolta HS 200 2.8 APO, Zeiss 24/2 ZA, Minolta 2xTC APO, HVL-F43M
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,464 posts
Likes: 363
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Dec 17, 2017 20:24 |  #43

For those that say there is no weight advantage using FF mirrorless, I think you really never tried to build up a light system.

I just got back from 3 weeks in Morocco with 2 cameras ( A7R2 and A7R ) and 2 lenses ( Batis 25 and 85)

Try creating an equivalent DSLR outfit and see if you want to carry that outfit for 3 weeks throughout Morocco.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
intence01
Member
144 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2011
     
Jan 09, 2018 00:48 as a reply to  @ Hogloff's post |  #44

I went to Sony mirrorless (A7RII) for a year and came back to Canon. You CAN get the size/weight advantage, but my understanding is that the short sensor to mount distance means that if you want wide aperture lenses (f/1.4 or larger) you'll be stuck with large lenses.

You *can* build a Sony A7 system with the Batis lenses or the Sony 28mm f2 and Sony Zeiss 55 f1.8. As soon as you want to think about f/1.4 you lose your size/weight advantage. While I know they're not comparable lenses, the Canon 50mm 1.4 is relatively small given it's aperture.

There's also the cost of the lenses. In general, the Sony lenses cost an arm and a leg. You can very decent results with a 6D and a 50mm 1.8 STM. 6D w/Canon 24mm f2.8 IS and 85mm 1.8 wouldn't be THAT heavy of a system vs. the Sony.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Avatar
592 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 419
Joined Apr 2016
Post edited 6 months ago by Ah-keong.
     
Jan 09, 2018 01:25 |  #45

I started with mirrorless (m4/3 Olympus) and then added DSLR....  :p

when compared solution to solution (body + lens + flash + etc).
The DSLR is more mature and higher cost performance....

Some may argue weight savings here and there. but the difference is not much.

But I must say mirrorless is the way forward. Let's see what Nikon and Canon may offer to compete in full frame terms....

Meanwhile, I like the m4/3 solution.... and the tiny lenses....  :p


Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2,8L IS II | Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar ZE
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT | 600EX-RT
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |

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

9,971 views & 108 likes for this thread
Switching from DSLR to mirrorless
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
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 DSalazar
735 guests, 315 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.