Who has gone mirrorless?

AlanU wrote in post #18894577
Sadly the truth is that new tech will trump manual focus. This has nothing to do with the person behind the camera. Match a gifted photographer behind ultra reliable AF....he/she will have more keepers. Therefore, more skilled images to cull in money shots for events. Focus peaking is another feature that is quite incredible.

Tell a BIF shooter that your manual focus system will have better quality in IQ and capture rate. I assure you such comments would NOT be taken seriously. The leica pedestal has no footing on this type of photography or any type of fast action in today's world.

"better than most" is every photographer's perception in their work. If you dared to use a modern autofocus camera, your composition should be virtually identical but more emphasis on composition. You'll relieve some efforts in acquiring sharp manual focus. Being human you cannot deny this regardless if you think it's second nature to manual focus. AF this day and age will still be faster and more accurate.

Edward Weston would roll in his grave if he saw what kind of gear is available today. Today, there are just as many skilled photographers with amazing composition. Quoting is great but I think he was excessively drinking too much vintage Coca-Cola with coca leaf in it He left this world in 1958 so there is a drastic gap in tech from his era to today.

I would consider AF to be beneficial in helping in paying more attention to composition. A good amount of portrait photographer's are appreciating eye AF to assure more keeper rate as they pose models. Just a feature that is modern and showing great success. Manually focusing works too but that type of focus is upto the photographer.

2019 people would care less if you commented that "I shoot manually only" thinking they are a different league with elevated standards. Many would say "I shoot aperture priority" and have the same respect as any photographer's shooting style.

Well truth is nothing trumps vision.

soeren wrote in post #18894617
Well truth is nothing trumps vision.

Subject matter trumps vision. There are times where the subject is so compelling that everything else is irrelevant. Just look at many historical photos. Technically many are junk but the subject makes them unforgettable.

gjl711 wrote in post #18894625
Subject matter trumps vision. There are times where the subject is so compelling that everything else is irrelevant. Just look at many historical photos. Technically many are junk but the subject makes them unforgettable.

Indeed!!! Speaking of subject matter.... a perfectly composed and technical photo of a normal to obese person would very unlikely get many likes on Instagram. Put a lightly dressed attractive model with a cell phone snap and it’d receive a tonne.

Photography is about marketing, networking and skills. Even lack of skills can survive with marketing and networking to a degree.

It’s so devalued now due to capable cell phones. Not every individual is willing to outlay cash.

gjl711 wrote in post #18894625
Subject matter trumps vision. There are times where the subject is so compelling that everything else is irrelevant. Just look at many historical photos. Technically many are junk but the subject makes them unforgettable.

this is funny but true

if only I had access to victory secret models all day long

or live in iceland

First, not everyone shoots birds in flight. In fact how many actually make their living doing that? I would argue not many. I will repost this and I agree that manual focus on a rangefinder is in most situations is better than auto focus. Before you go there I shot with DSLRs for a decade and shot with the best and went all Leica for many reasons and manual focus being more consistent is just one reason.
Here:
https://www.artphotoac​ademy.com/the-leica-look/

Without vision, the ability to see visually, then none of this is anything but subject or as Weston called it the obvious or a noun. Anyone can do that. Yep that is a bird. Yep thats a car. But when things get interesting and separates a photographer from the herd or the masses of other people that take photographs is the ability to photograph what the subject means to that photographer. When that photographer can show what that subject means to him and takes it beyond the obvious or the noun. And when it really gets special is when he can put together images in a body of work that says something more than just a subject and have those images look like his images.
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." - Ernst Haas

I know many of the greats that made the jump to digital went Leica M digital.
Joel Meyerowiz
Jill Freedman
Ralph Gibson
Costas Manos
Just 4 off the top of my head. And the reasons they went the way they did are similar to the reasons that I did.

I would say what separates the greats from everyone else is vision not subject. Since I am talking about Weston lets take his work as an example. It didn't matter what the subject matter was the photographs all looked like Weston photographs. His nudes look like his peppers that look like his clouds that look like hie peppers that look like his nudes. Didn't matter what the subject was. He made it all his. His vision trumped it all as does with most of the work of the greats. That is just one thing of many that separates them from herd.

No not at all. Without vision you can stand in front of the most beautiful subject and not be able to capture it.
With you can make great pictures where other people won't even pull out their cameras.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18894673
First, not everyone shoots birds in flight. In fact how many actually make their living doing that? I would argue not many. I will repost this and I agree that manual focus on a rangefinder is in most situations is better than auto focus. Before you go there I shot with DSLRs for a decade and shot with the best and went all Leica for many reasons and manual focus being more consistent is just one reason.
Here:
https://www.artphotoac​ademy.com/the-leica-look/

Without vision, the ability to see visually, then none of this is anything but subject or as Weston called it the obvious or a noun. Anyone can do that. Yep that is a bird. Yep thats a car. But when things get interesting and separates a photographer from the herd or the masses of other people that take photographs is the ability to photograph what the subject means to that photographer. When that photographer can show what that subject means to him and takes it beyond the obvious or the noun. And when it really gets special is when he can put together images in a body of work that says something more than just a subject and have those images look like his images.
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." - Ernst Haas

I know many of the greats that made the jump to digital went Leica M digital.
Joel Meyerowiz
Jill Freedman
Ralph Gibson
Costas Manos
Just 4 off the top of my head. And the reasons they went the way they did are similar to the reasons that I did.

There are many hired sports/motorsport photographers. They require autofocus to be current in their needs in landing a high keeper rate. A wedding photog would also benefit in autofocus.

Your description of a photographer is a human component in photography. I was waiting to hear the wonders and joys of navigating control dial and hand holding of superior manual focus gear that portrays in blissful imagery

Mirrorless camera's is hardware. Nothing more and nothing less. The composition is all on "us". There's just forward movement in innovation and tech. Living the past in manual focus is fine for some. New age photogs are just as capable and gifted as old traditional film shooters as far as composition and "eye". To say a preference in manual focus in "better" than autofocus just defies logic in many situations. Keeper rate at f/1.2 or fast primes is just going to be higher. When you cull you will not be telling your client that you missed a pivotal moment because you prefer manual focus. Your keeper rate with a mirrored dlsr/mirrorless body in a fast paced event will be better than manual focus. More in focus means more meaningful images to cull if you want to assure capturing a special moment. Average size prints most 24+MP files is more than enough.

To describe manual focus is "better" than AF while using a rangefinder is your perception in your work and how you do it. I am right eye dominant and I can easily see what's going to happen before my field of view as I open my left eye using my Sony or Canon mirrored body. Last time I checked AF response is dramatically faster and accurate than human fingers and manual focus

I do not need to describe the wonders and romanticize the use of AF. In 2019 you'll have a small audience demanding to use manual focus for fast paced professional needs. It'd be difficult to convert or convince AF users to switch to manual focus. Reason is composition skills is a part of photographic style and AF simply supports acquiring tack sharpness effortlessly in most situations. A modern Pro will not boast he/she uses autofocus. Some manual focus shooters are compelled to say such things assuming it will elevate them to a different tier of status. Clients simply do NOT care. Landing the shots with a photog's signature style is what counts...not how they acquire the focus.

Mirrorless is just a tool...just like a DSLR. If it works for a photog...that's what counts.

They are all just tools and some tools are right for some and some tools are right for others. I rarely see any wedding photographs made with todays auto everything better than some of the really great medium format shooters from the film era. The best wedding photographer I knew was a guy the shot with a 2 Leica M 3s. A 35mm on one and a 50 on the other. He was doing photojournalistic style when Monte was king and everyone wanted to be Monte. I rarely see anything today that comes close to capturing the moments and emotion he was able to capture. He could see and he knew how to anticipate.

Laughable to a degree if you speak to events photographers, And again I do shoot a lot of high end events for corporate clients and my rates are not cheap. I have been very fortunate and I can afford any tools I need to do my job. And you're right all clients want to see is results. I would have been out of business decades ago if I didn't consistently exceed my clients expectations and I have a very tough crowd to please. Usually other visual professionals. For many like me manual tools work best because we have ALL the control. I need that control. I need the speed I get from a rangefinder. I have learned to anticipate and see moments and I don't need high frame rates. I don't use FPS because I don't need to blast my way through. I have learned to see and capture images in the moment. Bresson referred to it as a developed instinct. I don't want one size fits all tools because I KNOW the tools that work for me. I know how to get what i need out of those tools and thank God there is a tool that fits my needs. There are certainly a bounty of the one size fits all auto everything out there already. Nice to have a real alternative as a choice.

Did you read the piece I posted? There are many that know that manual focus is faster than auto in many situations. I want to a camera that can actually manually focus extremely well and as the article stated faster than auto focus in most situations. I will say it takes practice and is something that is a learned skill but once mastered is for many like me a much better choice. There is a reason I moved away form auto focus. It wasn't consistent enough for my needs.

Just last month, I saw an original Edward Weston print, absolutely gorgeous and engaging. I can’t fathom how ludicrous one would have to be to snip: “If only he had the latest gear.” Weston has no reason to be, in an apparitional sense, envious of today’s cameras, but the very vast majority of photographers have very good reason to be envious of Weston’s talent (I have a couple of his books, so I’m not reacting to just one photo).

And while we’re at it, take a gander at an original Ansel Adam’s print from 70 years back, or hell, just a good print in a book…haven’t seen anything that makes me think, if only he had better tech…talk about a laughable wish! (And no arguing that his gear was the best at the time, because the comparison is between tech now and then).

As for composition; some have arguably matched Henri Cartier-Bresson’s mastery of composition, but no one that I’ve seen (and I’ve seen a lot!) has surpassed his visual sensibilities, whether they had autofocus or not. He wasn’t a great photographer because he used a manual camera, this is not the point, but nor was he limited by it, that’s the point.

Oh, one might argue that all of this is subjective, and you know what, that’s kind of the point. The thing about aesthetics is that if it is good (in the eye of the particular beholder), it remains good, irrespective of time, irrespective of technological developments. Kind of like why I wouldn’t spend too much time pondering what if Beethoven had Garageband instead; or if the Ming Dynasty ceramists or potters had access to 3D printers; or if Rembrandt could use Illustrator.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s fascinating merit to wondering how folks from the past would use today’s latest mediums, and Adams was aware of digital before his death, expressing great interest in its potential.

But none of this diminishes what these artists already did, and it would be foolish to contend that they were somehow handicapped by their supposedly anachronistic tools (like that crappy ol’ Stradivarius). After all, if I like a photo from the latest digital camera today, I’m not going to like it any less should I somehow manage to see a photo from 100 years down the road (go cryogenics!!!).

Of course, I’ve largely been referring to just quality (though not solely), but even this can be thrown right out the door, because Robert Frank’s “The Americans” is messy—-messy enough to have drawn the ire of several of his contemporaneous critics—-but it is still the best photographic essay that I’ve ever had the pleasure of perusing…that’s opinion. That it was a remarkably influential work is fact.

Obviously, different cameras provide different capabilities, and I’m not going to shoot birdies a flutter with a pinhole camera, but on the other hand, if professional photographer David Burnett wants to shoot the Olympics with a Holga and a 1940s Speed Graphic, along with his digital arsenal, who am I to say “No!, you need 1 million FPS and auto-everything to succeed!” A gimmick some might retort; see the photos; they’re good.

Really, though, some of my favorite sports shots were photographed pre-automation; then again, much of my favorite photography falls between the 1920s and 1970s. And more recently, Nick Brandt has done some remarkable wildlife with a medium format film camera…using a hybrid technique of digitizing for further post processing. But that’s just my thing, maybe no one else’s.

Likewise, it’s just my thing that I like shooting film with a manual rangefinder. If I thought it seriously hampered my creativity or capabilities in any manner, I would use something else. And by the way, I’m struggling to compute how any autofocus is faster than zone focusing, but it’s a quick struggle, quite ephemeral, as ultimately, it doesn’t matter either way.

Because whatever barriers I might encounter are well worth the joy of the overall process, and this intangible benefit is not up for debate…it’s pure personal preference; we’re all different. As such, I can certainly appreciate and respect why a number of photographers hated the very things that I love about film, why they were itching to get out of the darkroom.

By the way, I’m not out to ‘romanticize or boast’, but good thing to know that photographers using the latest equipment never brag about their gear and specs…

And to be sure, I’m just a hobbyist, so I have far less things to throw in the bucket of considerations, but that doesn’t necessarily negate any of my points, particularly since a) many readers of the site are also enthusiasts, and b) professionals like airfrogusmc share similar thoughts.

Personally, if I was flipping and flopping between DSLRs and mirrorless, ergonomics and applicability to my style would be my main concerns. Both types of camera are highly capable, and I can’t imagine, just in terms of image quality, looking at a great photograph from one of those types and thinking, if only they used the other type.

In the end, we all benefit from variety, and there is more choice now than ever. This is something that should be worth celebrating rather than be a constant source of debate (perhaps the most naive thing I’ve ever said…).

Really, though, because there are so many different needs and styles, the gear will prove important only as it pertains to its ability to successfully facilitate the photographer’s demands or desires. And these demands and desires are going to be all over the place with photography.

I’ve seen compelling photos from pinhole cameras; I’ve seen compelling photos from cameras that required all the high-tech imaginable in order to get said photo.

But farcical is the myopic argument that if Photographer A and Photographer B are the same in every sense, than the photographer with the better gear will always take the better photograph…photography doesn’t work that way, because art doesn’t work that way.

That’s all; I’m out.

+1 As many of us are aware that the tool is the extension of the user-operator. Some great pieces can be made from very technical or simplistic gear.

Reading all this, I was amused at wondering what Mathew B. Brady could have done with our modern gear.

avimagery wrote in post #18816933
I'm about due for a camera upgrade, and I'm planning to finally make the switch from APS-C to Full frame (I've waited so long because I have a bunch of EF-S lenses that would also require upgrading = $$$).

The question is, do I go the traditional route and get the 6D MkII or 5D IV, or switch over to a mirrorless option? Looking for pro's & cons of making the switch. Best I've found so far is that the mirrorless cameras tend be lighter, have eye-focus tech (I've read that the Sony A7 III has an amazing eye focus technology, but the price point for the Sony G-Series lenses is ridiculous), and that making adjustments to ISO, Shutter Speed, etc. is easier because the digital viewfinder shows exactly what you'll be capturing. On the other hand, I hear that the batteries are smaller and because they are new, the organic lens options are limited (however, I am aware of the conversion mount for EF lenses).

So, I'm looking for advice from those who have made the switch, or considered it and didn't.

-Andrew

I went from a 7DII to the A7III

Overall I'm very very satisfied with my decision, the G lenses are expensive, but there are real nice gems in the 35mm/50/85 trinity which are on the more affordable side, Of course it depends on what you do and what you already own, Sony's 24-105 and the 70-200 GM are great glass however (From what you have in your signature) If there was one big weakness on sony its in the native affordable zoom options. None are particularly "wow"

Conversion can work pretty well if you dont shoot too much fast action, but tracking AF on converted lenses is a crap shoot most of the time

Eye detect AF is superb, very quick and accurate with native glass and really improves hit rates for portraits and action photos, the tracking AF is even better than the 7DII and actually pretty easy to setup and get working with. In body stabilization is a great thing to have as well

Its not all roses, Sony's menus are... well you need to get used to them, and after a year shooting the A7 my muscle memory still sometimes goes for the QCD instead lol

Me too.

Canon's next mirrorless (pro body) better be equal to or better than the Sony A7riv!

Yea but by the time Canon release the next version of their mirrorless body we'll all have seen the A7r6

Hope Canon responds better to the challenge that all are setting lately.

Depending on what you like to shoot gear can make a big difference, modern technology does improve the quality of motorsports photography. Now would Edward Weston be able to take a better photo of a toilet if he had a Sony A7RIV? Who knows, I know I don’t care. I do know a Sony is a lot more portable than an 8” x 10” view camera. Not everything is about art, art is very subjective and just because you like something doesn’t mean everyone does.

If technological advancements would have no impact on the quality of your work, congratulations you will not need to upgrade, for those of us that can benefit from it, we will gladly adopt what we thank will help.