Does mirrorless do anything for you?

Charlie wrote in post #18688976
sex isn’t physically possible for that amount of time, and drag racing can easily last all day..

Yeah, there are warnings about ED meds that leave one attentive for four hours as not a good thing, medically speaking

Wilt wrote in post #18689301
Yeah, there are warnings about ED meds that leave one attentive for four hours as not a good thing, medically speaking

Well, contrary to popular belief, sex isn't just about that one body part being attentive the entire time. However men are generally ignorant of that, as I am often reminded.

That is much like one shooting an event for 12 hours wouldn't have the camera at attention in front of their face for that entire time either, but rather would have the gear at rest many times through the day.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18689294
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.

Purpose wasn't to say its better than DSLR. More a matter of the level of performance possible at a given size

I can see that but the point was lost with the belittling of the DSLR.

How much was that lens? That is one of the things I am interested in. I am tired of the crazy prices of Canon lenses, and am a bit tired of sigma too. I would love to try alternative glass, one of the reasons I am considering the a73. I do like some of the Rokinon glass, but manual focusing through an ovf is tough.

AlanU wrote in post #18689273
Sony's iso performance is a different level of performance to any APS-C.

Still waiting for decent examples as proof of this from you, but I suspect we'll always be waiting.

Also, this thread had nothing to do with Fuji vs anything, so why you always interject it into every post you make is a little baffling.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18689315
I can see that but the point was lost with the belittling of the DSLR.

How much was that lens? That is one of the things I am interested in. I am tired of the crazy prices of Canon lenses, and am a bit tired of sigma too. I would love to try alternative glass, one of the reasons I am considering the a73. I do like some of the Rokinon glass, but manual focusing through an ovf is tough.

My point wasn't to belittle DSLR's. Just made the point that the smaller DSLR bodies and lenses tend to not be so great in terms of performance. A 5DSR with something like the Zeiss Milvus 21 would match the a7rII with the Loxia 21...but its MUCH larger.

If we're talking purely size, then here's how a smaller DSLR set-up at an equivalent focal length stacks up (I'm generally not a fan of DXO mark, but its a good objective point of reference)

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.

Yes I did read that one post, as to what is being discussed there is a lot here.

More and more weddings I shoot are in the one place, If I'm lucky I'll get to put down my cameras for about 30mins while I eat. Otherwise I'm on my feet concentrating on what's going on, directing my second and carrying a couple of cameras, little time to be going and pack bags.

There is a diffinate ease dealing with that on the day by using my mirrorless. Lighter is lighter - go get a quart of milk and hold it out at arms length for 10 minutes then do the same with a loaf or bread & tell me which one was better to hold, (making of lunch right there).

Compared to the old DSLR shooting me, I save almost 2Kg in two cameras and two lenses, plus I can fit all the lenses and cameras for the in a smaller case that weights much less so it's easier to transport (not such a big deal but at the end of a long day it all helps). I don't even see myself going back to lugging about a 135mm DSLR any time in the future. If I sitting[Ish] about in one place like at a game then I'd be less bothered about the size/weight thing but for weddings it's great.

I was shooting with Sigma a little while ago with their 105/1.4 as well as the 150-600 Sport. On the long lens even with the A73 on it that was hard work to hold up for more then a few minutes at a time, there the camera was negligible in the weight but for the smaller primes the little light weight Fuji's are wonderful. Lugging about a large medium format camera about less so

One needs to be very analytic about product characteristics, and which features are and are not associated LITERALLY with one type of product vs. another.

Image Quality is not inherent to mirrorless vs. dSLR...it is inherent to the semiconductor design and the fabrication process...EITHER mirrorless or dSLR theoretically could have the same characteristics of noise, color saturation, DR from their respective chips. The Sony sensor in the Nikon dSLR is virtually the same low noise IQ as the Sony sensor in the A9 mirrorless. Sony has rather recently decided to NOT offer for sale some of their most recent and advanced chip fabrication/designs to other companies, to hold back some competitive advantages.

Size seems to be inherent to mirrorless vs. dSLR. But wait, the Olympus OM series and the many compact body SLRs that were extremely popular, particularly among amateur shooters in the 1980s, prove that a reflex mirror is NOT inherently forcing a camera to be significantly 'bigger'

• 1974-1990 Leica 90mm f/2.8 TELE-ELMARIT-M it has a 61.28mm extension from flange, measured at infinity
  
• 1990 - 2008 90mm ELMARIT-M f/2.8 has 55mm a extension from flange, measured at infinty
  

• Dual pixel focus from live image is not possible with a reflex mirror in the way.
  
• Viewfinder showing Exposure 'simulation' is not possible with a reflex mirror in the way.
  
• 100% AF area is generally not possible (with today's AF sensors at the bottom of the body) unless one uses image sensor-based AF
  
• Subject eye/face tracking is likely not possible with a reflex mirror in the way.
  
• Immediacy of view (virtually ZERO lag) is not really possible unless LCD/LED are refreshed at FASTER THAN 120Hz...a 90mph baseball is actually 13" farther than where you see it in the Live View viewfinder, a 180mph race car is actually 26" farther than were you see it in the 120Hz live view viewfinder
  
• Night vision in dim conditions can be ruined by live view viewfinder showing exposure simulation (brighter viewfinder than ambient conditions)
  
• Reflex mirror usually means momentary viewfinder blackout...but a pellicle camera (EOS RT) is 'reflex' without viewfinder blackout
  
• And some things are 'Is that truly an issue?' I cannot recall (during several weddings that I have attended during the past two years as a guest) actually HEARING shutter and mirror sounds from any reflex camera in the church...other than my own camera a few inches from my ears! And being a former wedding pro, I am quite conscious of working wedding pros, their techniques and their equipment! I measured my own dSLR from a distance of about 15' and the sound meter only went up to about 32dB. Yes, those machine gunning cameras during press conferences do pose a serious distraction when you're trying to hear a speaker's statments!
  
• Ultimate efficiency of battery life is not possible when you always must keep power on the LED/LCD of the Live Viewfinder camera.
  

Trying to prove the point of MILC again by using a 2009 APSC with a run of the mill Canon prime doesn't do much for your point.

However just talking about how you can use lenses that are crazy sharp with a MILC is again of value. I would love to see that same lens on something like Canon's M50?

What comparable lenses/bodies were you shooting with DSLR that you are now doing with a mirrorless? I would love to know how with just 2 bodies and 2 lenses you have shaved off almost 4.5lbs? That is very substantial. When I run a 5D4 and 70-200 against the Canon equivalence, I only lose about 7oz.

Point is that there are no modern compact DSLR’s…for whatever reason But it’s not just the body though Wilt. The shorter flange distances mean you can employ simpler/smaller lens designs at the UWA, wide angle, and normal focal lengths. These are the walking focal lengths that people who smaller size setups tend to use.

i.e. look at the Sony 12-24 F4 vs the Canon 11-24 F4

How about taking off the lens cap/hood thingy on the right? Does that shorten the length any? Or just put the lenses upright on their mounts with just the lens and no hood/caps.... It is tough to see. When I equalize the mount position, the Canon one is just a tad longer, but not a bunch?

What does the Sigma 12-24 for Canon look like too? I used to have one, but don't remember its length. Different manufacturers of the same focal lengths/apertures will create different lens sizes, I believe.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18689347
How about taking off the lens cap/hood thingy on the right? Does that shorten the length any? Or just put the lenses upright on their mounts with just the lens and no hood/caps....

What does the Sigma 12-24 for Canon look like too? I used to have one, but don't remember its length. Different manufacturers of the same focal lengths/apertures will create different lens sizes, I believe.

The sony has the lens cap on too

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18689315
I can see that but the point was lost with the belittling of the DSLR.

How much was that lens? That is one of the things I am interested in. I am tired of the crazy prices of Canon lenses, and am a bit tired of sigma too. I would love to try alternative glass, one of the reasons I am considering the a73. I do like some of the Rokinon glass, but manual focusing through an ovf is tough.

With a little practice it's quite easy and very [almost] liberating. There are a few options with focus aids, peaking, zoom etc.. Fuji have a cool twin view in the EVF (on the X-T) where you have a big screen that is zoomed in for focus and a little one on the side or you can swap that about if you prefer. I sometimes just shoot manual everything and that is nice from time to time. Fly by wire lenses tend to adjust the depth of focus depending on how fast to twist, good as a slow turn gets little movement of the focus and a faster turn gets much more & bad for the same reasons as marking off a focus distance is impossible with that system. The X-H1 has an option to normalise that. If you have proper manual lenses on it's no bother at all. Really it's like live view on your read screen only up to your eye and with a load of good features helping you out & with an EVF containing 3.69million dot OLED the detail is great, even with 'only' 2.36 million it's still really good.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18689352
With a little practice it's quite easy and very [almost] liberating. There are a few options with focus aids, peaking, zoom etc.. Fuji have a cool twin view in the EVF (on the X-T) where you have a big screen that is zoomed in for focus and a little one on the side or you can swap that about if you prefer. I sometimes just shoot manual everything and that is nice from time to time. Fly by wire lenses tend to adjust the depth of focus depending on how fast to twist, good as a slow turn gets little movement of the focus and a faster turn gets much more & bad for the same reasons as marking off a focus distance is impossible with that system. The X-H1 has an option to normalise that. If you have proper manual lenses on it's no bother at all. Really it's like live view on your read screen only up to your eye and with a load of good features helping you out & with an EVF containing 3.69million dot OLED the detail is great, even with 'only' 2.36 million it's still really good.

I could use live view and zoom in 5x or 10x for manual focusing, which is what I did with the Rokinon, but that wasn't always fun during a shot. Using a EVF (good quality one) while focusing would indeed be alot of fun! That is one of the leading advantanges, for me, of the MILC, along with using various other lenses I cannot today. I would love to go to a pawn shop and dig through their old camera gear to find some gem. Right now, there is no need to do so, because I cannot shoot with whatever I find. Even old FD lenses would be fun I think. We have some very old pawn shops here that have been around for decades, and they have some interesting nostalgia items.

For moon shots, I just visually do it in the OVF, but am often at a 35mm equiv 2700mm. It is enough to fill the viewfinder with the moon, but again to be able to fine tune the AF to really get the craters into focus would be liberating.

This is one of my best handheld manually focused cropped samples (the old 7D), but I only get about a 10% keeper rate currently this way. I would like that to be easier. The 2nd one was with the 7D2 with a bit more reach, I believe. Again, I take a ton just to get a couple decent shots.