Does mirrorless do anything for you?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18689150
My lightweight travel gear is an SL2 and small zoom. It is quite compact and light, but also is a DSLR. Of course not a FF, but for a crop, it is quite capable and produces great results even at high ISO. The SL2 is about the same weight as the A73R and is smaller by 10 cubic inches if internet specs are correct.

However, IMO it is too small actually. I hate having my fingers hang off the camera, and I have to contort my thumb to hit some of the buttons. So a Sony MILC might be better because it would be bigger!

Overall the SL2 did respectably well even at ISO 6400 at our last vacation, and it fit in my wife's purse which was nice too.

Cool shots.

With regards to size, the value proposition of mirrorless cameras has always been the fact that you have smaller/lighter set-ups without compromising on image quality, optical quality, or the capabilities of the camera itself. I never have that nagging feeling of “damnit…should have brought the ‘serious’ camera” i.e. if I’m out with the kids, eye-AF is an absolute god-send as it means I can quickly catch things quickly as they’re happening and with less fuss, whereas a lesser camera would involve more fumbling with settings and still likely missing a higher degree of shots. If I’m out on a photowalk, I’m carrying an easy to manage set-up, but still have very high optical quality glass sitting in front of a very good image sensor that can do whatever scenes I run into justice.

Secondary bonus is that I don’t need to have an extra play camera and system of lenses. My work cameras and play cameras are one and the same.

Hogloff wrote in post #18689171
Teamspeed, I never once said everyone carries their camera for 12 hours at a time...I said I do. But I see enough people asking what small camera should they buy for travel to see that a big DSLR being dragged around while one travels for how many hours in the day becomes a pain in the ass due to its weight and bulk.

Much of my photography comes from travel where my gear is with me 100% of the time, camera on my wrist or attached to my belt ready to take photos. Saving 40% of the weight of my gear by ditching DSLR's and going mirrorless was a HUGE benefit of the mirrorless world...one of the reasons I decided to look at mirrorless.

You may not think weight reduction is a benefit because YOU don't use your gear for extended times...but please respect other people's use to be different than yours and stop your ridiculing my views.

When it comes to travel and carrying a full-on kit, mirrorless makes a lot of sense because travel type lenses are much smaller. And when you build up a bag of 3-5 lenses for travel, the size/weight savings really add up. Not to mention the fact that the optical quality of these smaller lenses is very high, whereas smaller DSLR lenses tend to be less than great.

mystik610 wrote in post #18689186
Cool shots.

With regards to size, the value proposition of mirrorless cameras has always been the fact that you have smaller/lighter set-ups without compromising on image quality, optical quality, or the capabilities of the camera itself. I never have that nagging feeling of “damnit…should have brought the ‘serious’ camera” i.e. if I’m out with the kids, eye-AF is an absolute god-send as it means I can quickly catch things quickly as they’re happening and with less fuss, whereas a lesser camera would involve more fumbling with settings and still likely missing a higher degree of shots. If I’m out on a photowalk, I’m carrying an easy to manage set-up, but still have very high optical quality glass sitting in front of a very good image sensor that can do whatever scenes I run into justice.

Secondary bonus is that I don’t need to have an extra play camera and system of lenses. My work cameras and play cameras are one and the same.

You are exactly right regarding the benefit of the Sony mirrorless cameras. They are compact without sacrificing image quality. When traveling my focus is on both street / cultural images and landscape. My mirrorless camera handles both of these types of photography...don't need a different camera for the different types of photography.

I still own a 7d for sports which I shoot once in a bit, but the A73 will replace it allowing me to consolidate my equipment.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18689116
I drag race, it isn't an all day affair, sorry, and it wouldn't be fun any longer if I had to do a burnout, stage, race, circle around, cool off the car in the staging lane, and repeat for 12 hours. Some can do the other activity as well for long periods of time, not all of us are able to sustain that however but it isn't fair to say NO ONE can do it.

Not sure why you want to play into Hogloff's drama like you are, but I appreciate you admitting you have never held a camera in the hands for 12 hours as the he overly and dramatically points out as being a commonplace occurrence and primary reason MILC is so very necessary for everyone, and you then parrot also as a reason. Thank you for that confirmation.

----

Mirrorless is a tool like many other things, nothing more. It doesn't make a system better inherently, it is just another "choice" you have available now. If in the past, your physical abilities or time behind a camera causes fatigue or pain, now you have a slightly lighter and smaller package to make the same photos as before. That is wonderful, we are blessed to be in such a time with so many great choices in cameras, features, lenses (even 3rd party glass is quite good).

However there is a proper way to state this and there are improper ways.

One way is to say "For me, xyz is better because.... but I understand that may not be a factor for others and I can respect that".

The other way is "xyz is better for everyone, because when I do this or that, which I presume everyone else also does, then everyone's life is better for what xyz brings to the table. I will take anyone to task if they dare say anything seemingly negative toward xyz".

It should be obvious which way is more conducive to civil discussions vs antagonistic/being a jerk. If not, I put smilies where needed to clarify. I doubt it will change anything, some become very refractory in their old age.

you run down the lane all day, like I was saying, you race, then wait your turn, and part of the waiting is the whole user experience. I'm not sure how this got so literal, Shoot all day = shoot + put camera down + eat dinner + bathroom breaks

Just a heads up. From a company that is also doing quite well sales wise.
https://www.l-camera-forum.com …2018/08/leica-m10-p-jono/
Also rumors of an M10 Monochrom in the fall.

Weddings can run for 14 hours plus there is the travel time. That can be pretty tiring an if you have to carry two cameras/lenses that weight saving adds up quickly. I know I really feel the difference since I moved over to Fuji

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18689239
Weddings can run for 14 hours plus there is the travel time. That can be pretty tiring an if you have to carry two cameras/lenses that weight saving adds up quickly. I know I really feel the difference since I moved over to Fuji

I also have some really long days and since I went all Leica M the days are still long but the back and feet are not near as sore after 12 hours.

My entire Leica kit probably weighs less than a 1DXII and a 200 2L. I usually shot with two bodies so you can only imagine a couple of 1DXIIs and a couple of lenses. In film days I shot with 500 C/Ms. Heavy to. A lighter kit can be very liberating and I take a lot less Advil ha ha...

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18689239
Weddings can run for 14 hours plus there is the travel time. That can be pretty tiring an if you have to carry two cameras/lenses that weight saving adds up quickly. I know I really feel the difference since I moved over to Fuji

Oh, I know the day is tiring, but the comment being "discussed" was the "try shooting for 12 hours". You don't shoot for 12 hours straight at a wedding, there are several times during the day the cameras are in bags/gear as you move from location to location, or during the meal, etc. At the last wedding, I counted something like 8 location changes for the wedding party pictures, and then the wedding ceremony location, and the reception hall shots. Each time cameras were put into a roller bag and wheeled around for ease with a couple other lenses and flash gear. This is why I converted my Pelican cases over to rollerblade wheels instead of the junky plastic wheels they came with. Makes transport so much easier.

Most of the weight I tote around are fast zooms, I do not use primes, and as far as I know, there aren't any very small very compact and light 70-200 2.8 lenses, one of my most used lenses along with a 24-70. A lighter body would be welcome, but as I stated before, I currently use hand straps on all my gear, and that eliminates ALL finger strain and pain. If one has wrist or elbow pain, then a hand strap isn't that helpful, and a lighter body help a bit, despite the lenses still being hogs.

So again personally, I don't need a lighter set up. I would like one, but it is not a primary concern for me yet. I appreciate those that do need/want or sport such a lighter setup, I can definitely see how that could be helpful for others. I just don't find 8oz savings a huge savings for me personally.

Now if I always had 2 cameras on me, now a 1lb difference around my neck for the day would be noticeable, but I also don't use neck straps. I use something like a cotton carrier, where one camera sits on my chest, and the other sits on a hip holster pad. Much more confortable this way distributing all that weight throughout my body instead of neck and shoulders. The NBA season starts up here soon, so I will be shooting (actually shooting almost non-stop meaning the camera is up to my eye) for 4 hours 2-3 times a week with 2 cameras/2 lenses. Let's see if another year of age has taken its toll on me.

I've taken quite some time adapting to my Sony mirrorless. From the get go I realized it's and entirely different beast compared to my Fuji Mirrorless.

If I had to make a choice I would choose Sony because of the piece of mind dealing with light that I cannot control. If the Sony file starts to fall apart this reassures that if I was using something else the image would be worst :P

If I was always shooting in ideal light even Micro 4/3 is an alternative. I left M43 due to the lack of high iso performance. The Fuji aps-c has become a part of my kit and I do enjoy it. Sony's iso performance is a different level of performance to any APS-C. Just knowing you can rely on that extra headroom is reassuring.

I still really enjoy using my mirrored bodies and I cannot let them go just yet. I wish I could go all mirrorless but I'm still one of those strange ones that feel that mirrored bodies matches my style well.

If I was making a living off of photography I would be using my Canon and build my Sony kit. Just that extra headroom would satisfy my preferences. Fuji is a great body that uses a Sony sensor but that added performance from a FF sensor is my crutch for human error. I'll take that extra headroom any day.

Spider holster saves my back big time. Op/tech neoprene neck strap is a savour too.

I went to Leica M for my pro work after shooting with an MM for my personal work for several years. I thought that I might miss my Canons for my corporate work but absolutely no regrets.

Hogloff wrote in post #18689200
You are exactly right regarding the benefit of the Sony mirrorless cameras. They are compact without sacrificing image quality. When traveling my focus is on both street / cultural images and landscape. My mirrorless camera handles both of these types of photography...don't need a different camera for the different types of photography.

I still own a 7d for sports which I shoot once in a bit, but the A73 will replace it allowing me to consolidate my equipment.

Yep. Comparing smaller, but lesser quality DSLR gear against a comparable mirrorless set-up in terms of focal length is not an apples to apples comparison. Quality matters too.

i.e. the Loxia 21 is very compact (about the size of the Canon EF 50 1.8)….but its easily the best wide angle lens I’ve ever owned. Very nice lens to take on photo walks.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Svxe​X3

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JbuR​ze

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FCxM​Eo

AlanU wrote in post #18689273
I've taken quite some time adapting to my Sony mirrorless. From the get go I realized it's and entirely different beast compared to my Fuji Mirrorless.

If I had to make a choice I would choose Sony because of the piece of mind dealing with light that I cannot control. If the Sony file starts to fall apart this reassures that if I was using something else the image would be worst :P

If I was always shooting in ideal light even Micro 4/3 is an alternative. I left M43 due to the lack of high iso performance. The Fuji aps-c has become a part of my kit and I do enjoy it. Sony's iso performance is a different level of performance to any APS-C. Just knowing you can rely on that extra headroom is reassuring.

I still really enjoy using my mirrored bodies and I cannot let them go just yet. I wish I could go all mirrorless but I'm still one of those strange ones that feel that mirrored bodies matches my style well.

If I was making a living off of photography I would be using my Canon and build my Sony kit. Just that extra headroom would satisfy my preferences. Fuji is a great body that uses a Sony sensor but that added performance from a FF sensor is my crutch for human error. I'll take that extra headroom any day.

Spider holster saves my back big time. Op/tech neoprene neck strap is a savour too.

I think you and I would be about the same in this regard, I have been following your saga. I would follow much the same track. I am still very interested in the A73, but don't relish the idea of a $400 adapter to use my lenses, and I am certainly not moving to Sony glass. So this leaves me in a quandary. The $2500 out of pocket to "try out" the A73 just doesn't have any kind of ROI right now. I would also have 2 completely different tracks of post processing to deal with, also not very fun.

For me to replace the 5D4, I would have to go to the A9 or its successor. Again, the amount of funds to change over just has no real ROI for me. To do NBA with the A9, I would have to get Sony glass. This means my outlay of cash after selling off Canon gear would be over $4000.

If I knew someone just starting out, I would definitely tell them to look at mirrorless, but those that are heavily invested in Canon DSLR gear, the move is much more difficult and costly, with marginal gains in feature/function for many. This is why having Nikon and Canon finally (and perhaps too late) entering the MILC fray with FF offerings can be good, it will drive more competition, so either the prices come down a bit, or feature/function increase to help the ROI.

In a year, or so, hopefully the A73 becomes so plentiful or new offerings come out that will cause some used market items to appear, and at that time, if I can get one around $1500 or so, I will probably give it a go. I can thne just to see how far down that rabbit hole I am willing to go.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18689269
Oh, I know the day is tiring, but the comment being "discussed" was the "try shooting for 12 hours". You don't shoot for 12 hours straight at a wedding, there are several times during the day the cameras are in bags/gear as you move from location to location, or during the meal, etc. At the last wedding, I counted something like 8 location changes for the wedding party pictures, and then the wedding ceremony location, and the reception hall shots. Each time cameras were put into a roller bag and wheeled around for ease with a couple other lenses and flash gear. This is why I converted my Pelican cases over to rollerblade wheels instead of the junky plastic wheels they came with. Makes transport so much easier.

Most of the weight I tote around are fast zooms, I do not use primes, and as far as I know, there aren't any very small very compact and light 70-200 2.8 lenses, one of my most used lenses along with a 24-70. A lighter body would be welcome, but as I stated before, I currently use hand straps on all my gear, and that eliminates ALL finger strain and pain. If one has wrist or elbow pain, then a hand strap isn't that helpful, and a lighter body help a bit, despite the lenses still being hogs.

So again personally, I don't need a lighter set up. I would like one, but it is not a primary concern for me yet. I appreciate those that do need/want or sport such a lighter setup, I can definitely see how that could be helpful for others. I just don't find 8oz savings a huge savings for me personally.

Now if I always had 2 cameras on me, now a 1lb difference around my neck for the day would be noticeable, but I also don't use neck straps. I use something like a cotton carrier, where one camera sits on my chest, and the other sits on a hip holster pad. Much more confortable this way distributing all that weight throughout my body instead of neck and shoulders. The NBA season starts up here soon, so I will be shooting (actually shooting almost non-stop meaning the camera is up to my eye) for 4 hours 2-3 times a week with 2 cameras/2 lenses. Let's see if another year of age has taken its toll on me.

Sure one does not shoot straight for 12 hours...but one has to carry their gear for their entire trip...sometimes months at a time. I appreciate you don't shoot in conditions like me, but please respect many others do. Have you ever traveled for a month with your gear, having to carry that gear with you every day? If so, I'm sure you understand where a lighter kit is a huge benefit and still you go out and redicule my posts regarding shooting 12 hour days.

If you don't carry a camera for 12 hours...that's fine...but don't just go assume others don't and respect others shoot differently than you.

Shooting style is the determining factor. Shooting faster moving subjects I prefer my 5d4 with 70-200 compared to using my Fuji with 50-140mm. Canon still feels more responsive the millisecond you depress the button. Slower subjects I appreciate owning my Fuji combo.

Bottom line is preference and what you can deliver in your style of photography.

I could imagine shooting birds or basketball with Leica. Just not logically ideal.

If someone never complains of weight and delivers top notch work.....they can happily shoot what they want. Soul from an image comes from the moment and photographer and not the gear IMO.

If you shoot f2.8 zooms I see little advantage going mirrorless for weight savings. F2.8 zooms on crop are more like f4 dof so it’s not apples to apples comparing Aps-c to FF.

Shoot what works for you.....

Post processed low ISO shots at high apertures doesn't show why a MILC is better than a DSLR, sorry. You are not going to convince me (or others) that those images are exclusively the results of a mirrorless camera that cannot be obtained any other way with a DSLR.

The only valid point about mirrorless you bring up is the ability to use other glass on a MILC that perhaps a DSLR cannot. If that was your point, it was a bit veiled with comments about "lesser quality dslr" and "focal lengths on a mirrorless", the latter being a bit silly because focal length is focal length regardless of MILC vs DSLR.

I still find it interesting how function/feature/senso​r design are all being mixed into the discussions to try to convince people how much better mirrorless is. Those are mutually exclusive. Mirrors or lack of mirrors do NOTHING for image quality, other than possible AF offsets/need for AFMA, which MILC should have no need for, but a DSLR might.