Whats so special about mirrorless bodies?

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17057716
like everyone else already said. lighter, smaller, better then majority of DSLR, often better image quality then the best that Canon crop DSLRs can offer.

Some mirrorless have even better image quality then the best Canon can offer.

No more neck, back, shoulder pains after lugging DSLRs around.

Mirrorless is not necessarily light. Carrying an A7r with 50mm, almost as heavy as the 6D and 50L.

larger the sensor, larger the lenses.

Charlie wrote in post #17058614
Mirrorless is not necessarily light. Carrying an A7r with 50mm, almost as heavy as the 6D and 50L.

larger the sensor, larger the lenses.

Except that the distance between lens and sensor does a big difference for wider lenses. So no - not all 50mm lenses are the same size/weight even if they happen to have the same maximum aperture.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17058028
I know of numerous wedding photogs who've abandoned their entire FF Canon or Nikon kit to go with Fuji offerings. TTL is a luxury many photographers choose not to use (myself included). I've been in the exact situation you brought up and used manual flash... no issues. If the lighting is constant (it pretty much always is in a wedding) then there's pretty much no reason to use TTL.

http://www.kevinmullin​sphotography.co.uk/fuj​i/
http://www.colinnichol​lsphotography.com …lm-x-cameras-xe1-weddings
http://www.albionrow.c​om/for-togs/fuji-x-cameras/

If their next line of sensors which are rumored to come this year give ISO100 (or lower) and ISO12800 (or higher) at the RAW level, I just might make the full switch.

The lighting wasn't consistent at all during the evening party. The building in which the evening party was held basically consisted of 3 rooms (the main/dance room, the room with all the food in it and a hallway where the weddingbooth app was installed). All three rooms had different light levels. And there were also 2 outside areas where the light levels differed a lot according to where you were standing. The photographer very frequently moved from one area to another. So while it would have been possible to use a speedlite in manual mode, she would have missed shots this way.

The EVF giving a simulated exposure is a pretty cool feature of mirrorless I reckon. Tweak your exposure & watch the changes in real time. As opposed to taking shot after shot & chimping just to get your exposure somewhere near it.
I also think APS-C is the sweet spot for mirrorless bodies, as dedicated APS-C lenses are a lot smaller & lighter then their FF versions, and match the reduction of size & sometimes weight of the body much better. Just a couple of things I personally like.

The one thing that really makes me jealous is the Dual Mode EVF of the X-T1 because it looks like it makes manual focusing dead simple.

Charlie wrote in post #17058614
Mirrorless is not necessarily light. Carrying an A7r with 50mm, almost as heavy as the 6D and 50L.

larger the sensor, larger the lenses.

This is the main reason I'm not interested in that system right now. They have the potential to make those lenses smaller and lighter, but right now you're right, it's really not much smaller or lighter than a 6D setup.

jocau wrote in post #17058678
The lighting wasn't consistent at all during the evening party. The building in which the evening party was held basically consisted of 3 rooms (the main/dance room, the room with all the food in it and a hallway where the weddingbooth app was installed). All three rooms had different light levels. And there were also 2 outside areas where the light levels differed a lot according to where you were standing. The photographer very frequently moved from one area to another. So while it would have been possible to use a speedlite in manual mode, she would have missed shots this way.

Variances in the lighting our easy to compensate for by changing settings on the body though. A quick change to your aperture or ISO is all it takes for most shots. It comes down to mostly preferences. I get that a lot of shooters like TTL, that doesn't mean you can't shoot a wedding without it.

Charlie wrote in post #17058614
Mirrorless is not necessarily light. Carrying an A7r with 50mm, almost as heavy as the 6D and 50L.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17059081
This is the main reason I'm not interested in that system right now. They have the potential to make those lenses smaller and lighter, but right now you're right, it's really not much smaller or lighter than a 6D setup.

Seriously? The two are very different. The 6D/50f1.2 combo is a bit over 46 oz while the Sony with 50 f1.4 is just over 24 oz. That's almost 1/2 the weight. Even the 6D with a 50 f/1.4 attacked is over 37 oz.

gjl711 wrote in post #17059107
Seriously? The two are very different. The 6D/50f1.2 combo is a bit over 46 oz while the Sony with 50 f1.4 is just over 24 oz. That's almost 1/2 the weight. Even the 6D with a 50 f/1.4 attacked is over 37 oz.

I should have clarified, using 50mm F0.95 on the Sony. ~1200g combo.

pwm2 wrote in post #17058632
Except that the distance between lens and sensor does a big difference for wider lenses. So no - not all 50mm lenses are the same size/weight even if they happen to have the same maximum aperture.

Yeah, look at the 50mm lenses photogs drool over: the Sigma Art and Ziess lenses are behemoths! The Sony A7 looks promising, but I'm still a DSLR kinda person. The only way mirrorless cameras stay light is by using their kit lenses. To stay small, they then have to have smaller apertures. They still have a long way to go to have a complete system. It's not surprising that some of the news about the World Cup was that photographers were required to wear Sony badges, but the only systems you saw on the field were the big Canon and Nikon lenses.

Eventually I might get a mirrorless with kit lens for the portability. But for versatility, I still like lugging a DSLR system.

Charlie wrote in post #17059235
I should have clarified, using 50mm F0.95 on the Sony. ~1200g combo.

Well that's kind of stacking the deck. Pick a 50mm that's so far out of reach for 99% of photographers and a whopping f/.95 as well. Bottom line, the body alone will save you just a tad over 10oz and quite a bit of size. Clearly it's not for everyone and there are plenty of situations where it will perform worse than a SLR but a small, light FF body that can deliver better IQ and nearly the same performance as a DSLR is quite a feat.

davesrose wrote in post #17059276
Yeah, look at the 50mm lenses photogs drool over: the Sigma Art and Ziess lenses are behemoths! The Sony A7 looks promising, but I'm still a DSLR kinda person. The only way mirrorless cameras stay light is by using their kit lenses. To stay small, they then have to have smaller apertures. They still have a long way to go to have a complete system. It's not surprising that some of the news about the World Cup was that photographers were required to wear Sony badges, but the only systems you saw on the field were the big Canon and Nikon lenses.

Eventually I might get a mirrorless with kit lens for the portability. But for versatility, I still like lugging a DSLR system.

Look at the small and nice Leica lenses. They aren't slow kit lenses.

A f/1.2 wide/normal lens for a mirrorless body can be made smaller than a f/1.2 wide/normal lens for a SLR body because it doesn't need as many lens elements when the lens can be placed much closer to the sensor. But it requires native lenses made for that flange distance. To get the size/weight advantage, you can't use lenses designed for a SLR body and an adapter to force the lens further away from the sensor to mimic the use with the original SLR body.

Ever wondered why not all lenses are pancakes? But you do see how small the pancake lenses are - because they happen to have a focal length where no extra lens elements are needed to get the image perfectly projected onto the sensor. Changing the flange greatly affects the options available when making the lenses. It doesn't really mater for tele lenses but it can matter very, very much for wider lenses.

pwm2 wrote in post #17059327
Look at the small and nice Leica lenses. They aren't slow kit lenses.

Because Leica has been developing range finder cameras for so long, and the M system is a bit of a bigger budget then your typical point and shoot camera

To be serious, I do think there's some marketing lies coming from mirrorless brands that like to claim equivalencies in FL with their lenses vs 35mm formats. They then don't do the full format conversion by also multipling the aperture. To get the full equivalency in DOF, you also have to multiply crop factor to your aperture. A 400mm 2.8 FF lens is huge because it's letting in more light.

davesrose wrote in post #17059347
Because Leica has been developing range finder cameras for so long, and the M system is a bit of a bigger budget then your typical point and shoot camera

It isn't because they have had so many years. It's because the range finder cameras allows smaller lenses.

And so does mirrorless cameras. So if people start to invest in mirrorless cameras, then the lens manufacturers will reciprocate by designing similarly small lenses for the mirrorless cameras. But no one invests the money in dedicated lenses for a specific line of mirrorless cameras unless they see that there is an interest.

But I'm talking about the ability to make small lenses for fullformat sensors. So no need for any marketing lies.

Your example with 400mm is a tele lens. As I did write, it's the wider lenses that can be made smaller. Same with EF vs EF-S. EF-S isn't needed for tele lenses, because there isn't really much to gain. But there is lots to gain on the wider lenses by having the lens reach into the body and so reduce the distance between the lens elements and the sensor.

A tele lens is able to project the image far into the camera body. A wide lens is not. So a wide lens basically needs an extra lens at the back - a bit similar to a teleconverter but used to reproject the image far enough into the body. A pancake lens is an example of a lens where the focal length, compared to the image sensor size and registration distance, is able to project the image directly on the sensor without any "booster" stage. So suddenly, several cm of length can be removed from the lens. But you can also gain advantages in the diameter of the lens for the wider lenses when designing them for a body with a short flange distance.

pwm2 wrote in post #17059363
But I'm talking about the ability to make small lenses for fullformat sensors. So no need for any marketing lies.

Most mirrorless cameras aren't FF. The only FF mirrorless system is the Sony A7, and most its criticisms is the lack of native lenses. At least Leica is established and offers a full range if you can spend that kind of money.

There are quite a few amazon customer reviews of the micro 4/3 cameras stating they believe their small telephotos equals the large 35mm teles in every way. Olympus is one of the worst offenders of perpetuating this lie by having an overhead photo of a small zoom lens over a large 35mm telephoto lens.

So fundamentally, I think you're right that manufacturers can make smaller yet faster lenses for the APS/ 4/3rds cameras...but they don't seem to have any incentive for investing in that.

davesrose wrote in post #17059406
Most mirrorless cameras aren't FF. The only FF mirrorless system is the Sony A7, and most its criticisms is the lack of native lenses. At least Leica is established and offers a full range if you can spend that kind of money.

But you have to separate the debate of sensor size for the debate of advantages/disadvantag​es with mirrorless bodies.

Whatever sensor size you have, you still get a real advantage in ability to make smaller wide lenses if you can move the lens closer to the sensor.

That's a completely separate debate - no need to drag in the sensor size war in this thread. Yes, 400/2.8 or "400 equivalent"/2.8 are totally different things. Which is also why some quite cheap P&S or bridge cameras can have quite fast lenses - their real focal length is much smaller than what a full-frame body would require for the same fov.

So they may be an offender - but it's not relevant to the DSLR/mirrorless debate. And it isn't relevant to the conclusion that a mirrorless body with a fixed sensor size can have physically smaller wide lenses than a DSLR body with the same fixed size can. All because of the reduced distance between the mount and the sensor.

I have never debated the ability to have smaller lenses for smaller sensors. I'm debating smaller lenses for same-size sensors. Because there is no mirror that force the lens to be a big distance from the sensor.

The quality of a Leica lens comes from the Leica skill.
The smaller size of a Leica lens comes from solving a simpler problem with a range finder than with a DSLR.