p.6 #1 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
Actually you wrote it yourself in your post "" the point is about having a small setup you can easily take with you everywhere all the time""
Yes, but I was speaking colloquially, not literally, which is what I am clarifying
And, I said "can", not "must". The point I was trying to make is that taking a high quality camera along with you casually is now a convenient option.
p.6 #2 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
artd wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that taking a high quality camera along with you casually is now a convenient option.
It already was before EVIL cameras came to town. It may have become a little bit more convenient by using EVIL cameras. But certainly not as convenient as the marketing folks would like to make us believe. At least, if you don't want to be 'limited' to pancake lenses or alt glass. I guess it's the ultimate photographers dream to always have a camera ready for those once in a lifetime shots. While in reality the camera doesn't leave the pocket at all. Who are we kidding?
p.6 #3 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
thedigitalbean wrote:
I was an early adopter of MFT back a couple of years ago. I like the system they are putting together but frankly I'm disappointed with the lack of progress sensor wise (the latest MFT cameras aren't much better than their earlier brethren).
+1
Exactly my experience. I'm really disappointed by the IQ higher than 400ISO from the Oly sensor.
Jan 21, 2012 at 03:47 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #4 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
Daan B wrote:
It already was before EVIL cameras came to town. It may have become a little bit more convenient by using EVIL cameras. But certainly not as convenient as the marketing folks would like to make us believe. At least, if you don't want to be 'limited' to pancake lenses or alt glass. I guess it's the ultimate photographers dream to always have a camera ready for those once in a lifetime shots. While in reality the camera doesn't leave the pocket at all. Who are we kidding?
p.6 #5 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
Daan B wrote:
It already was before EVIL cameras came to town. It may have become a little bit more convenient by using EVIL cameras. But certainly not as convenient as the marketing folks would like to make us believe. At least, if you don't want to be 'limited' to pancake lenses or alt glass. I guess it's the ultimate photographers dream to always have a camera ready for those once in a lifetime shots. While in reality the camera doesn't leave the pocket at all. Who are we kidding?
Daan,, maybe it would not leave your pocket...then for YOU, a small high quality camera would be useless. Just drag along the 1dx with the 70-200 lens everywhere you go. But for a lot of other people, being able to put a small camera into their jacket pocket or brief case and be able to take photos when before they could not, might be very appealing.
I travel a lot and got myself a fuji x100 so I could always have a camera with me. After I am done my business, I usually have plenty of time in different parts of the world where I can spend a couple of hours photographing different city life. I did not take my dslr on most occasions because I did not want to carry around another bag with me while visiting clients. With the 5d2, I could just slide the camera into my business bag and not require another bag.
I thought about using a small p&s, but the quality of the images just did not meet my standards. This all changed with the latest generation of mirror less cameras.
p.6 #6 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
chez wrote:
I thought about using a small p&s, but the quality of the images just did not meet my standards. This all changed with the latest generation of mirror less cameras.
If you honestly mean what you claim above, the Canon G1X should fit the bill perfectly.
p.6 #7 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
Khun Hans wrote:
+1
Exactly my experience. I'm really disappointed by the IQ higher than 400ISO from the Oly sensor.
Well, it's certainly better in the noise department than recent Canon "enthusiast" cameras like the 7D...
It's funny how people expect a small, cheap, pocket-size camera to perform just like an oversized, overweight $5,000 DSLR... and if it doesn't, it somehow logically follows that it's a piece of crap...
p.6 #9 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
chez wrote:
I got the x100 and from my little experience with it, it will do exactly what I want.
Cool. So far, only the Panny and NEX cameras offer acceptable AF accuracy & speed under low light conditions. The Fujifilm and V1/J1 cameras appear to falter and fail completely. We'll see how Canon fares in this department.
p.6 #10 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
thw2 wrote:
...The Fujifilm ... cameras appear to falter and fail completely...
I hear that a lot on the internet, but rarely from people who own an X100. I actually have an X100 and it performs just fine for AF in good light and in poor light. It certainly doesn't track moving subjects very well in low light, but why would you expect that it should? That's what 1D-series cameras and fast USM lenses are for.
p.6 #11 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
thw2 wrote:
Cool. So far, only the Panny and NEX cameras offer acceptable AF accuracy & speed under low light conditions. The Fujifilm and V1/J1 cameras appear to falter and fail completely. We'll see how Canon fares in this department.
From my experience so far with the x100, I have no complaints with the AF. I've used it mostly indoors under trying lighting conditions. Amazing high iso images.
p.6 #12 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
molson wrote:
Well, it's certainly better in the noise department than recent Canon "enthusiast" cameras like the 7D...
It's funny how people expect a small, cheap, pocket-size camera to perform just like an oversized, overweight $5,000 DSLR... and if it doesn't, it somehow logically follows that it's a piece of crap...
None of the MFD cameras have the high ISO performance of a 7D (or at the time even an XSi which is what I compared it to). The NEX cameras are a different story. The original NEX-3 and NEX-5 were the first mirrorless cameras to have sensor IQ match other APS-C DSLRs and the NEX-5N IMO even has a slight edge over the Canon APS-C DSLRs (not sure about the Nikon ones).
p.6 #13 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
molson wrote:
It's funny how people expect a small, cheap, pocket-size camera to perform just like an oversized, overweight $5,000 DSLR... and if it doesn't, it somehow logically follows that it's a piece of crap...
+1
I've noticed this strange thinking in a number of discussions of Cameras Other Than The One I Usually Use. Many have some idealized camera/lenses combination that defines, for them, the optimum tool set for making fine photographs. I do, too. However, unless you always photograph more or less in one particular way in one range of circumstances, it should be possible to realize that in some cases and for some people My Perfect Setup might turn out to not be ideal.
For those whose perfect gear is characterized by some sort of DSLR accompanied by some set of good lenses, many of us who also shoot with such equipment can sure as heck imagine circumstances in which any disadvantages of the smaller "mirror-less" (or whatever you want to call them) cameras would not be as significant as their advantages. Whether or not they actually fit in your pocket (or a small bag, or your carry-on...), they most certainly make for a smaller package. Whether or not they can equal the performance of a full frame DSLR with a great lens (they can't), they can still produce excellent results in situations where the "better" camera would be inappropriate or else not there at all.
I don't (yet) own one of the new breed of such cameras - though I have and occasionally use an old 8MP Canon Pro One - I look forward to getting one when things settle down a bit, and I'm certain that I can already think of situations where I would use one rather than using my DSLR gear.
p.6 #14 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
thedigitalbean wrote:
None of the MFD cameras have the high ISO performance of a 7D (or at the time even an XSi which is what I compared it to). The NEX cameras are a different story. The original NEX-3 and NEX-5 were the first mirrorless cameras to have sensor IQ match other APS-C DSLRs and the NEX-5N IMO even has a slight edge over the Canon APS-C DSLRs (not sure about the Nikon ones).
I haven't used a Medium Format Digital (MFD) camera, so I don't know how any of them compare to the 7D.
I was comparing the 7D that I currently own to the Olympus E-P3 and Panasonic GH2 that I also currently own, and both m4/3 cameras easily hold their own against the 7D in terms of high ISO noise.
p.6 #15 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
jcolwell wrote:
I hear that a lot on the internet, but rarely from people who own an X100. I actually have an X100 and it performs just fine for AF in good light and in poor light. It certainly doesn't track moving subjects very well in low light, but why would you expect that it should? That's what 1D-series cameras and fast USM lenses are for.
You're forgetting that there are an awful lot of people out there in internet-land that are seemingly unable focus an image properly with any camera that doesn't say "Nikon" on it...
p.6 #16 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
Daan B wrote:
It already was before EVIL cameras came to town. It may have become a little bit more convenient by using EVIL cameras. But certainly not as convenient as the marketing folks would like to make us believe. At least, if you don't want to be 'limited' to pancake lenses or alt glass. I guess it's the ultimate photographers dream to always have a camera ready for those once in a lifetime shots. While in reality the camera doesn't leave the pocket at all. Who are we kidding?
From personal experience I will disagree. Before EVIL cameras no it was not convenient. I could not stick a DLSR body into my jacket. I could not stick a DSLR into my laptop case. I could not stick a DSLR into the little mesh side pocket of my hiking backpack. And I did not take my DSLR around with me as much as I now take my EVIL camera.
As far as being limited, a NEX5N with kit zoom actually still fits in my jacket pocket. I prefer alt glass though because it is more compact, has great image quality, and I actually enjoy using manual focus.
The camera may not leave my pocket most of the time I have it with me. But for the times it does, I am sure glad that I have it.
p.6 #17 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
molson wrote:
You're forgetting that there are an awful lot of people out there in internet-land that are seemingly unable focus an image properly with any camera that doesn't say "Nikon" on it...
p.6 #18 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
molson wrote:
I haven't used a Medium Format Digital (MFD) camera, so I don't know how any of them compare to the 7D.
I was comparing the 7D that I currently own to the Olympus E-P3 and Panasonic GH2 that I also currently own, and both m4/3 cameras easily hold their own against the 7D in terms of high ISO noise.
I too own the 7D and E-P3 and agree the E-P3 is amazingly close to the 7D in terms of noise control, at least up to ISO 1600 or so. Of course it is only 12MP so that shouldn't be such a difficult feat. The 4/3 aspect ratio bugs me a bit as I've gotten used to matting and framing 8x12 and 12x18 prints but at least I don't have to special order frames for 8x10 prints.
p.6 #20 · Mirrorless craze - Am I missing something?
outlawyer wrote:
I loved his idea of a compact camera; a 5D with a pancake lens (Pentax?) that was like a half inch long.
The 5D with 35 f2 comes awfully darn close. I mentioned (in the dream kit thread) my desire for a rebel sized FF but we're talking about a pound weight difference. If you can live with the small lens, the body is not so bad. Not sayin' its pocketable though.
