Does mirrorless do anything for you?

N2bnfunn wrote in post #18702217
Well I never said all.. but for now you won't see a side line photographer at a professional football or any professional sport with a mirrorless camera for now.

So here are 10 Pros to prove you wrong. That took 10 seconds with Google.

https://www.mirrorless​ons.com …s-for-sports-photography/

N2bnfunn wrote in post #18702219
, and the battery life on a mirrorless camera would not be enough for me or anyone that is shooting all day long.

That's why I always carry extra batteries and at least 2 bodies.

N2bnfunn wrote in post #18702217
Well I never said all.. but for now you won't see a side line photographer at a professional football or any professional sport with a mirrorless camera for now.

Sports photographers on the sidelines are, numerically, a very small slice of the professional photography market. The bulk of professional work is wedding, event, portrait, real estate, product. There are also professionals working in journalism and in fine art. I don't see why mirrorless isn't an option for a lot of these photographers.

The term "Professional photographer" is someone who is making a living off of photography.

This is were there is no set policies or procedures in how to conduct his/her business.

A "Pro" can shoot with and iPhone or 10yrs+ dslr or even a point and shoot as long as they get paid. My point is the term "Pro" is used with no definitive benchmark or mandated rules.

I think "FEATURES" is something that should be emphasized as mirrored or mirrorless have different characteristics due to different technologies.

The Micro 4/3 world has evolved a lot but I really do feel it's at a point of hitting a wall in maxing out it's maximum potential at this moment in time. Physical size of sensor is the limiting factor. For a person shooting articles on low res print can easily use the latest M43 system but when low light situations happens it's far from ideal. Big thing at the moment is "inexpensive" long telephoto needs for people compared to $$$$$ Canon/Nikon/Sony telephoto lenses.

If weight isn't a factor a universal beast like the 1dx series, 5dmk4, Nikon D810/850 or lighter setup Sony A7iii (for the cheap), A9 can shoot from fast action, low light clean files, less AF hunt, thinner dof using zooms etc. As you can see this is a list of a mix of mirrorless and mirror.

Wait till Nikon and Canon produces "worthy" FF mirrorless and this topic will shift. A Nikon die hard will say I use my D850 (or whatever newest body avail) and my Z6/7 mk2,3,4 and have a heavy or light combo. Same goes for a Canon user waiting for EOS R mk2,3,4.
Canon and Nikon will eventually produce incredible FF mirrorless bodies..right now...NOT!!! :P

It will be interesting to see what Canon does for body nomenclature for subsequent mirrorless versions and successors to those bodies.

Worthy FF for me and a lot of those that have gone to Leica M like me would be a lot more like a Leica M than what everyone else is producing. Apparently there is a market. Just take a stroll through a rangefinder forum and a Leica forum and a lot of photographers that love stripped down rangefinder cameras wish they had a less expensive option. Less features. So you would think that one of these companies might see this and make true rangefinder mirrorless camera with less features. It has worked for Leica. It wouldn't be a camera for the masses. They seem to think more stuff on their camera's the better the value. many Leica photographers are just the opposite. We tend to think, because of the way we have worked for years, that just means more stuff to get in our way. But that is clearly not the way the majority think but we are out there as seen by Leica sales of cameras like the M 10 and MM. Maybe there would be a market for a less expensive version of the M 10 or MM.

the X-T3 is really shaping up to be a monster, 30FPS is basically raw video, at that rate, I dont think the human eye can predict better than that, at least I wouldnt bet on it.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18702692
Worthy FF for me and a lot of those that have gone to Leica M like me would be a lot more like a Leica M than what everyone else is producing. Apparently there is a market. Just take a stroll through a rangefinder forum and a Leica forum and a lot of photographers that love stripped down rangefinder cameras wish they had a less expensive option. Less features. So you would think that one of these companies might see this and make true rangefinder mirrorless camera with less features. It has worked for Leica. It wouldn't be a camera for the masses. They seem to think more stuff on their camera's the better the value. many Leica photographers are just the opposite. We tend to think, because of the way we have worked for years, that just means more stuff to get in our way. But that is clearly not the way the majority think but we are out there as seen by Leica sales of cameras like the M 10 and MM. Maybe there would be a market for a less expensive version of the M 10 or MM.

I don't get the argument for less features. If your camera has a feature you don't use... just don't use it. I've done maybe 2 videos on my X-Pro2, never touched the advanced film simulation modes, never fussed with bracketing, extended ISO, etc... but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that those features are there... why should it? The camera has simple dials for aperture, shutter-speed and ISO... if you really wanted you wouldn't have to ever touch anything else on the camera.

Adding those features makes the camera more desirable to the "masses" as you put it, this increases sales and lowers the cost for the consumer... why is that a bad thing?

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18702709
I don't get the argument for less features. If your camera has a feature you don't use... just don't use it. I've done maybe 2 videos on my X-Pro2, never touched the advanced film simulation modes, never fussed with bracketing, extended ISO, etc... but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that those features are there... why should it? The camera has simple dials for aperture, shutter-speed and ISO... if you really wanted you wouldn't have to ever touch anything else on the camera.

Adding those features makes the camera more desirable to the "masses" as you put it, this increases sales and lowers the cost for the consumer... why is that a bad thing?

Its ok for you not to get it. There are plenty those like me that do get it. Nice to have choices. I shot with DSLRs for over a decade and never like them or warmed up to them. I have also shot with many of the other mirrorless options. For me I bought M-E, MM, M 262 and the M 10 because of not only what they are but what they don't have. I plan on selling my M-E and picking up another M 10 by the end of the year. And I shoot Leica M digital for my professional work as well as my personal work.

I went digital in 2005 and at that time if Leica would have had a FF digital camera I would have jumped on it that time. I went out of film kicking and screaming but business, clients and a faced downsize 5 years early forced me to digital. Canon had a FF digital so I went that route. Never enjoyed shooting with it but it did get the job done.

I bought the MM in 2012 along with a 35 Lux FLE and it was a perfect fit. In 2015 I went all digital Leica with no regrets because they fit with the way I see and work. I haven't enjoyed the photographic experience as much as I do now since picking up my Hasselblad 500 C/Ms in the 1980s.

I shoot and have shot all manual for over 40 years so cameras without the automation are really good fits for me. A true rangefinder is perfect for the way I see and work. It's quiet, small and not obtrusive and that is good on the streets as well as annual report and candid work. So I prefer a simple less automated approach. Nice to have a real choice in the sea of the one size fits all approach most other camera makers are taking.

So I am glad Leica and there are many more like me (thus the years waiting list when they introduced the M 10 and about the same when they introduced the MM) doesn't follow your thought. Nice to have a choice unlike all the others out there and many of us pay more to have that choice. And that is my point that with the success of Leica you would think one of the bigger companies would see that and try to break into those that are like me even if we are not as big of a market as those that want all the stuff but we are a market.

I certainly don't care what the masses want. In fact I would argue if you try and please everyone you wind up not pleasing anyone including yourself. I know what works for me and the way I see and work. And again there are more out then that just me.

N2bnfunn wrote in post #18702219
By the way I am professional photographer as well, and the battery life on a mirrorless camera would not be enough for me or anyone that is shooting all day long. That is why my 1DX has the over side battery and it has some weight to it.

this goes back to the above mentioning about the new a7 series having batteries that are capable. also.. one can say that a small mirrorless with telephoto/zooms can shoot longer, all day because its somewhat lighter.

wedding photographers who moved to mirrorless are enjoying the lesser weight that they carry around.

and then travel photographers.

please dont be in denial

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18702717
Its ok for you not to get it. There are plenty those like me that do get it. Nice to have choices. I shot with DSLRs for over a decade and never like them or warmed up to them. I have also shot with many of the other mirrorless options. For me I bought M-E, MM, M 262 and the M 10 because of not only what they are but what they don't have. I plan on selling my M-E and picking up another M 10 by the end of the year. And I shoot Leica M digital for my professional work as well as my personal work.

I went digital in 2005 and at that time if Leica would have had a FF digital camera I would have jumped on it that time. I went out of film kicking and screaming but business, clients and a faced downsize 5 years early forced me to digital. Canon had a FF digital so I went that route. Never enjoyed shooting with it but it did get the job done.

I bought the MM in 2012 along with a 35 Lux FLE and it was a perfect fit. In 2015 I went all digital Leica with no regrets because they fit with the way I see and work. I haven't enjoyed the photographic experience as much as I do now since picking up my Hasselblad 500 C/Ms in the 1980s.

I shoot and have shot all manual for over 40 years so cameras without the automation are really good fits for me. A true rangefinder is perfect for the way I see and work. It's quiet, small and not obtrusive and that is good on the streets as well as annual report and candid work. So I prefer a simple less automated approach. Nice to have a real choice in the sea of the one size fits all approach most other camera makers are taking.

So I am glad Leica and there are many more like me (thus the years waiting list when they introduced the M 10 and about the same when they introduced the MM) doesn't follow your thought. Nice to have a choice unlike all the others out there and many of us pay more to have that choice. And that is my point that with the success of Leica you would think one of the bigger companies would see that and try to break into those that are like me even if we are not as big of a market as those that want all the stuff but we are a market.

I certainly don't care what the masses want. In fact I would argue if you try and please everyone you wind up not pleasing anyone including yourself. I know what works for me and the way I see and work. And again there are more out then that just me.

None of what you just said had anything to do with my point, except maybe the first part of the last paragraph. And to that point I would simply point at any of the major camera manufacturers as evidence that that's really just not the case.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18702734
None of what you just said had anything to do with my point.

Did you read it? It is says that me and many that shoot like me don't care if you and people like you get it. It doesn't matter. You have lots of choices with all the stuff anyone could ever use and menus to match. There are those like me that also have a choice but it is limited. Choose what works for you and I will choose what works best for me and the more basic a camera is the better it is from me. And again there are more out there like me thus the success of cameras like the Leica MM, M-D and M 10. It looks like for now Leica is the only one producing those types of rangefinder mirrorless cameras. Glad Leica listened to us when they designed the M 10 and kept video off the camera. Many in forum land said it wouldn't sell. It had a years waiting list when it was first introduced and sales have been strong.

So with the price of Leica M and the success they have had with cameras without all the stuff you would think that one of the other makers would see that as an opportunity. Instead of creating the same ole same ole maybe create something that goes against that grain. I'm sure there are some others out there that would love a well made simple digital rangefinder camera with a lower price tag than a Leica M.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18702739
Did you read it? It is says that me and many that shoot like me don't care if you and people like you get it. It doesn't matter. You have lots of choices with all the stuff anyone could ever use and menus to match. There are those like me that also have a choice but it is limited. Choose what works for you and I will choose what works best for me and the more basic a camera is the better it is from me. And again there are more out there like me thus the success of cameras like the Leica MM, M-D and M 10. It looks like for now Leica is the only one producing those types of rangefinder mirrorless cameras. Glad Leica listened to us when they designed the M 10 and kept video off the camera. Many in forum land said it wouldn't sell. It had a years waiting list when it was first introduced and sales have been strong.

So with the price of Leica M and the success they have had with cameras without all the stuff you would think that one of the other makers would see that as an opportunity. Instead of creating the same ole same ole maybe create something that goes against that grain. I'm sure there are some others out there that would love a well made simple digital rangefinder camera with a lower price tag than a Leica M.

I like to go out shooting with my FM, the FE2, the old MAT124G, Chamonix 45F1 or my RZ67PROII kit. Only 3 things to keep in mind. Set the shutter and apperture, Focus and shoot. No fancy buttons, displays or flashing lighs to take your mind of the important stuff. Just the bare essentials and the biological software in control. Being free from features to turn of or ignore, a device without distractions.

N2bnfunn wrote in post #18702150
Hello for now a mirrorless camera is NOT a Professional grade camera. Let me explain with the mirrorless camera it does have a
professional sensor but the size for most people it is too small for your hands for a long periods of time.


The battery life will be half the time then a professional grade camera. In automobile terms it like having a car with massive engine
but that doesn't mean it is ready for the race way.


Mirrorless camera's has a ways to go before I would consider using it has my main camera.

Mbell is that you?

soeren wrote in post #18702755
I like to go out shooting with my FM, the FE2, the old MAT124G, Chamonix 45F1 or my RZ67PROII kit. Only 3 things to keep in mind. Set the shutter and apperture, Focus and shoot. No fancy buttons, displays or flashing lighs to take your mind of the important stuff. Just the bare essentials and the biological software in control. Being free from features to turn of or ignore, a device without distractions.

Nice to have that in digital also.