Like it or not, mirrorless cameras have overtaken DSLRs as the cameras of choice for most photographers. As the major camera brands transition away from developing new DSLRs and focus on mirrorless technologies, there are still advantages to using a DSLR.
In this tongue-in-cheek video, I discuss five things that I miss about shooting with my DSLR. Don't get me wrong, I am exceedingly happy with my mirrorless cameras and have no desire to go back, but there are always tradeoffs when changing gear. In the past, upgrading from one DSLR to another meant better autofocus, metering, and performance, but overall, the cameras were more or less the same. Mirrorless, in my opinion, is a completely different animal and has a few drawbacks worth noting. The biggest thing I miss about my DSLR is that I could use it for an entire day without thinking about batteries. I lived in blissful ignorance of battery life and barely ever changed batteries during a shoot. Now, I find myself carrying batteries and chargers everywhere I go, like some kind of crazed hoarder. Heat is another issue, and I don't mean overheating. I am referring to the fact that the grip on a mirrorless camera becomes incredibly warm, especially if you are shooting outside on a hot day. My other rants include complaints about screen overload, ruggedness, and the iconic shutter sound we will never get back. I hope you enjoy this just-for-fun video.
There are few benefits to mirrorless, and many disadvantages. You may have gotten a few good ones, (battery life, heat), but that's about it, and both of those have little to do with it being mirrorless, (yes, the EVF does use more batteries, and produce heat), and more to do with cheap, cost-cutting makers. Good design will not leave you looking for batteries nor A/C.
Ruggedness has nothing to do with mirror/mirrorless. That is just cheapness of the maker!
The sound of the mirror?!? That is like piston-heads saying they will never go BEV because of the lack of a satisfying engine roar! That is NOT a good thing! Besides, a noisy shutter on an SLR is again just shoddy cheapness from the maker.
Screen overload?!? Really?!? I have an SLR and that rear screen can, (at times) be very useful! Sure, I generally never use it, but when I do, all that information is waiting for my perusal! If your DSLR did not have a high-res rear screen full of information, then your SLR is from a cheap, cost-cutting maker. Get a better SLR.
Also, I will ignore any and talk about video in a discussion about DSC systems. The “S” in DCS stands for, “Still,” as in, not video.
The best things I like about an SLR?
① No lag in the viewfinder, (especially for any sort of fast photography, —such as wildlife, sports, theatre, street, wedding…— where timing is important).
② No bright light in the viewfinder. (Especially in dark venues, or night).
③ Full resolution viewfinder, (not measured in megapixels, because, I can see it with my eye).
④ I can actually see how bright/dark is the actual scene.
⑤ PDAF is NOT on the sensor. (Does not impact achievable image quality).
Notice that the first four —and by necessity, all five— reasons are all about the fact that it has an OVF.
Yes, the only two differences between a well built SLR and a well built mirrorless; OVF vs EVF, and where the PDAF is located, (assuming the mirrorless has one). Mostly, it all comes down to whether one prefers OVF or EVF.
Now, in theory, a mirrorless camera can have other advantages, such as being smaller, lighter, and have better, less-expensive lenses. In practice, it did not pan out that way (so far).
If EVF is your thing, then by all means, buy a mirrorless for the EVF. The rest of the system is immaterial.
The best thing about a mirrorless is only achievable with an electronic shutter, (quiet shooting, no blackout), which creates so many other issues, (flash use, worse rolling shutter*) and those can be done with an SLR in liveview mode.
* Assuming a CMOS sensor, as almost all DSCs use. CCD sensors, which are becoming increasingly rear in the DSC world, —cannot think of any current models off the top of my head right now,— do not have rolling shutter issues in electronic shutter mode, (but will still have a very brief blackout).
--- "Now, in theory, a mirrorless camera can have other advantages, such as being smaller, lighter, and have better, less-expensive lenses. In practice, it did not pan out that way (so far)."
Sounds like you're in denial and have dated info. Here, let me catch you up:
1. The bodies are smaller and lighter. Sometimes, just a little bit; sometimes a whole lot.
2. Don't forget the better AF. The AF in the top mirrorless bodies will kick the teeth in of any top DSLR.
3. The lenses with some can be smaller and lighter. Sony has been kickin' ass with smaller and lighter GM premium lenses. Also, third party like Samyang.
--- "The best thing about a mirrorless is only achievable with an electronic shutter, (quiet shooting, no blackout), "
No, not only those, but, the 3 I listed above. And, to add to that:
4. EVF with:
-a) Live exposure and histogram for quicker adjustments.
-b) Magnify especially when using manual focus lenses.
-c) It's like night vision, baby. :D
--- "(electronic shutter) which creates so many other issues, (flash use, worse rolling shutter*) and those can be done with an SLR in liveview mode."
Flash use? No, not always. The only thing I can think of is if you use hi-speed sync.
Rolling shutter? Depends on what you're shooting.
If these are an issue for you, use mechanical shutter. It'll be just as fast, if not faster than a DSLR, and definitely much more accurate.
«The bodies are smaller and lighter. Sometimes, just a little bit; sometimes a whole lot.»
Compared to what? The two smallest Professional camera systems are the Pentax K-3/K-3 II, and the Olympus OM-D EM1. [This, and the next paragraph, did not age well. See comparison bellow. I tip my hat to Sony.]
Fine. They are not F-types. going that route, the smallest professional system is the Pentax K-1/K-1 II.
Please note, that I said, “professional system” so do not start comparing novice and intermediary models with, “but,… but,… the model so-and-so by….” Irrelevant. Even if I have not kept up with every new model since the last time I expounded on this in a thread, the difference in size to the next smaller/lighter models will probably be minimal.
One person dared to show me a Nikon body with smaller dimensions and weight. When I again expressed, “system,” and compared both systems with the pro-level holy trinity zooms, (AF, SR, WR) the Pentax was MUCH smaller and lighter.
«Don't forget the better AF»
Not necessarily so. Also, you totally missed the point that sensor-based PDAF compromises attainable IQ. That is just plain and simple physics. (There was a YTber who actually demonstrated this once. Took a 30 min video to say what those paying attention to technology already knew).
Additionally, with all the talk about “missed focus because it is not fast enough,” I have never missed a shot because of failed AF, and I use a Pentax K-3, which is NOT the fastest AF on the field. I credit it to skill and experience. The point is, “fast enough cannot be improved by faster.” It is like those people who type at 80wpm, who want a faster computer than a 1.2GHz Celeron Gen 1 for their MS Word. Faster CPU will not speed them up.
I mean, the Sony ɑ-1 does 120 AF calculations per second. At 30fps, that is 40 calculations per frame. (actually, slightly less, but we will go with it). How many AF calculations per frame does it take to actually get the AF correct? Yes, the subject can change their speed, but we are talking speed changes within 1/30th of a second. How fast can a cheetah slow down? How fast can a formula-1 car slow down? How fast can a ballerina slow down? How fast can a Tesla accelerate? What are the chances that one will miss focus?
Besides, the bottleneck is still how fast the lens can move into focus, not amount of calculations, nor the speed of the cameras AF system, (unless one is referring to the Pentax screw-drive system, which none of the pro lenses primarily use.
Besides, Nikon users will tell you that the biggest “missed focus” issue they have is not the speed it takes the lens to acquire focus, but miss calibration of the lens to think that it has gotten focus when it has not. (I really do not have that problem 😉).
«Sony …with smaller and lighter GM premium lenses.»
Forget the Samyang; This is a “system” comparison. It may be smaller, but by how much? Now Sony has been doing MILS for decades, unlike Canon or Nikon, so I expect them to be very good at this. Pentax has been doing SLRs for decades, so this will be interesting.
Fine! Let's do this one more time! (Why, for the life of me, I do not know).
Pentax
K-1 II 136.5×110×85.5 mm (W×H×D), 925 g, ¤1,996.95 (reg) ✓
HD Pentax-D FA 15-30mmF2.8ED SDM WR, 98.5×143.5 (Dia×L), 1046 g, ¤1,446.95 (reg) ✓
HD PENTAX-D FA 24-70mmF2.8ED SDM WR, 88.5×109.5 mm, 787 g, ¤1,296.95 (reg) ✓
HD PENTAX D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW 91.5×203 mm, 1755 g, ¤1,796.95 (reg) ✓
Sony
ɑ-1 128.9×96.9×80.8 mm (W×H×D), ✓ 737 g, ✓ ¤6,499.99 (reg)
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM 88.5×121.6 mm, ✓ 136.2 g, ✓ ¤2,199.99
FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II 87.8×119.9 mm, ✓ 695 g, ✓ ¤2,299.99
FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II 88×200 mm, ✓ 1045 g, ✓ ¤2,799.99
Congratulations! Outside of price, the Sony has the Pentax K-1 II decidedly beat! Now for the caveats.
First, I still consider the K-3 series a professional series, and that will beat the Sony.
Second, although the Sony has beaten the Pentax body in size, (both the K-1 & the K-3), there were compromises in that; The Pentax bodies have better battery life, better cooling, better insulation (against cold, water, and dust), and better ergonomics.
Third, let's do Canon & Nikon! Wait... What's my point?
My point is, «In practice, it did not pan out that way (so far).» I was in error. I had meant to say, “In practice, it does not always pan out that way (so far).” In my defence, the last time I did one of these comparisons, the ɑ-1 and the latest GM series were not yet out. The last time I did this comparison of professional systems, only the Olympus beat Pentax in size/weight, and only the Olympus was reasonably close in pricing.
I might also be surprised by Nikon & Canon, because they have both released several new bodies and lenses since my last comparison. My “so far” may be too little too late.
«Live exposure…»
Remember, as people always tell me when I bring up my point about “light in my eye,” is that the brightness of the EVF is adjustable, so live exposure is NOT reliable.
«histogram…»
I do not need a histogram of my scene (unless I am shooting with a CCD sensor). A histogram of my subject may be useful, but EVF does NOT give me that.
«Magnify especially …manual focus….»
A tool which, unless one specialises in macro photography, will not use often, especially if one has the best AF that will kick the teeth…. Even with macro photography, one will likely be using the rear screen, and not the EVF, so…. DSLR will do that. (At least my K-3 does).
«…like night vision…»
Like I said,… light in the eye. no thanks. If it suits you, than go for it.
Even when the EVF output is adjusted down, (thus somewhat nullifying night vision), it is still a light in the eye, with a much higher LV than the ambient. That is my problem with it.
«Flash use? No, not always.»
Read your manual. There are serious limitations with flash use with electronic shutters. Primarily, it changes the “flash-sync” time, plus other caveats.
«Rolling shutter? Depends on what you're shooting.»
No kidding? You mean that a rolling shutter is not an issue when I shoot still life? Right! That is precisely when I would have to use an electric shutter! No,… wait,….
Electric shutter is only useful when ① I want to shoot silently, ② I want to reduce lag time, and ③ I want maximum fps (depending on camera). Now tell me about rolling shutter issues again and how it depends on what I am shooting? Mind you, great for weddings and funerals at brightly lit venues, and in theatre or other performing arts where flash is not allowed, etc. I get that. That is why many DSLRs have electronic shutter options, too. No OVF, though, so it cannot be used in a theatre.
«If these are an issue for you, use mechanical shutter»
And lose the advantage of EVF? That is, silent shooting in a theatre. “…Quiet shooting, no blackout,…” and no bright screen lighting up the venue. Another reason that so many theatres say, “no photography of any kind.” Aside from copyright issues, (which they do not care about from the average snap-shooter who will not be publishing/selling prints), they do not want to see the gallery lit up with a thousand screens of light.
"«Live exposure…»
Remember, as people always tell me when I bring up my point about “light in my eye,” is that the brightness of the EVF is adjustable, so live exposure is NOT reliable."
Do you mean showing reliable exposure? Compared to an optical viewfinder?
NO, compared to what is seen on a calibrated monitor. Saying that one can see the actual exposure on an EVF is meaningless when the brightness of the EVF is changed. Calibrated monitors are seen in a specific room at a specific setting.
So one either has the EVF at a specific setting to see actual exposure, or one dims the EVF and no longer sees the actual exposure. One must rely on instrumentation, (light-meter), to get the correct exposure. (Hence my reference in another post to IFR → Instrument Flight Rules, as opposed to VFR → Visual Flight Rules).
I guess we use our VF differently...
I hardly ever use IFR when shooting photos. :^)
Pentax? Pentax?!? They're still a thing?
All of this geek speak (PDAF, CCD, CMOS, DSC, AF calculations speed, sensor this, sensor that) is just smoke screen. Spewing all this means nothing in the real world. At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. And, if the images in your FS profile and your website are indicative of the quality one can expect from a Pentax so called "professional system", it's no wonder they've gone down the toilet. They look like something from early smartphones.
I mean, do you even still shoot? Or just LOVE to write? From what I can tell, your professional website has the same images since 2018 (maybe even earlier). Surely, someone professional would have or know to keep their portfolios updated. Especially, most especially, if they are trying to talk the talk and walk the walk.
--- "Additionally, with all the talk about 'missed focus because it is not fast enough,' I have never missed a shot because of failed AF, and I use a Pentax K-3, which is NOT the fastest AF on the field. I credit it to skill and experience."
Lol, "I credit it to skill and experience." You've probably never missed focus because most of your subjects are still; and you typically shoot at apertures f5.6 to f22. So, yeah, you shouldn't be missing focus.
--- "«Live exposure…» Remember, as people always tell me when I bring up my point about 'light in my eye,' is that the brightness of the EVF is adjustable, so live exposure is NOT reliable."
What? You make no sense. An EVF can come closer to the result exposure than an OVF. Like you said, EVFs are adjustable. So, adjust it. For my Sony's, I just keep 'em on manual so the brightness is consistent.
--- " «Magnify especially …manual focus….» A tool which, unless one specialises in macro photography"
Again, what? It's comments like this is why a lot of what you write is not believable. Ludicrous even. Magnfiy + manual focus are used commonly in portraits, landscapes, architecture, etc, etc.
--- "«Rolling shutter? Depends on what you're shooting.» Now tell me about rolling shutter issues again and how it depends on what I am shooting?"
With newer mirrorless bodies, they are better at handling rolling shutter where it's a non issue for many scenarios. Take the video below as an example with a flying bird:
1. Timestamp 4:09-4:47 (https://youtu.be/WwvGvgGHtvE?t=249)
Now, for more extreme movements, it can be a problem. Hence, why I said it depends what you are shooting:
2. Timestamp 6:46-9:08 (https://youtu.be/WwvGvgGHtvE?t=406)
--- "«If these are an issue for you, use mechanical shutter» And lose the advantage of EVF? That is, silent shooting in a theatre. “…Quiet shooting, no blackout,…”"
Wait, now, you're defending EVFs?
--- "Another reason that so many theatres say, 'no photography of any kind.' Aside from copyright issues, they do not want to see the gallery lit up with a thousand screens of light."
More importantly, they don't want you blinding and distracting the performers with flash.
Your first sentence made me think that it is no point reading the rest of what you were writing, based on one simple thing; ALL SLR manufacturers, EXCEPT Pentax —that is, Nikon & Canon— said that they are abandoning their SLR systems for mirrorless technology. Indeed, Fujifilm, Olympus, and Sony has not had an SLR for years. Pentax is the ONLY SLR manufacturer who said that they are going all in on SLR, and will NOT be going mirrorless in their pro series. Indeed, it appears as if the Q series is discontinued/abandoned, as has the Optio series, leaving the only mirrorless from the company being the Ricoh branded line, (GR, WG, G, Theta).
Therefore, if this is an article about mirrorless vs SLR, it HAS to be an article about Pentax vs the rest. Ergo, your very first sentence is ill-informed.
Yes, I did read the rest of what you said anyway, and choose not to comment on your dribble.
As for my website, For clients, I mainly shoot corporate events, (including sporting events), portraits, and model portfolios. Since Covid, I have stopped shooting corporate events. As for portraits and portfolios, I do not see the need to put every client I shoot on the website. I mean, really?!? But you are right. It can be somewhat updated. Too bad you did not give any useful input; just a negative comment.
Yes, I still shoot, but mostly for myself, (still life, flora/fauna, landscapes, & abstracts), and see no need to put any of that on my business website, (unless I plan to do fine art prints, which is not a bad idea). My most recent client was an event, actually, but I usually say no to such solicitations. In this case, I had a personal connection to the client and reluctantly accepted after several offers.
Also, your penultimate & your last comments are dead giveaways that I should end this conversation with you. In one, you show that you are not following the conversation, in the other you once again state the obvious as if it were relevant.
Re-read, and I gave a few advantages of the EVF, and stated why I personally think little of them, and stated several times that if it suits the user, go right ahead. You take me for an OVF shill. I am merely someone who prefers it for the advantages it gives me. Like I said, it is not a debate of mirrorless vs SLR, but EVF vs OVF. The rest is mostly immaterial.
E.g., I mentioned the disadvantage of the mirror/shutter noises, and pointed out that even that can be mitigated in an SLR system. There is even a certain mirrorless {cough cough Canon} DSC whose mechanical shutter makes more noise than that of the Pentax K-3.
Anyway, it was nice talking to you, for a bit.
Oh, I feel I must respond to the “geek speak” comment —not for your benefit, but for the benefit of others reading.
It is not smokescreen and means (nearly) everything in the real world.
PDAF, CDAF, BTA, & Low-light.
If one typically takes low-light images, and one requires fast auto focusing, —I cannot think of a scenario off the top of my head besides the performing arts in a darkened theatre,— then one needs a system which has fast low-light focusing.Contrast Detect Auto Focus, (CDAF), although accurate, is typically slow due to how it works, (hunting), and typically does not work in low-light, or poor contrast scenes.
CDAF cannot tell whether a system is front or back focused, nor by how much; just that it is likely not focused, based on lack of contrast. It moves the lens one direction to see if it gets better or worse, then decides whether to continue, or go in the opposite direction. As the contrast increases, it keeps going, until the contrast starts to decrease, letting it know that it has passed the focus point. It then turns back, and continues to the point of greatest contrast.
Now Phase Detect Auto Focus, (PDAF), looks at the image from two slightly different angles, and works out the phase difference between the out-of-focus areas, figures out if it is back/front focused, figures out by how much out of focus, then moves the lens in one shot to focus. Very fast. It still needs some contrast, but not as much as CDAF does, and works in less light than CDAF.
However, as is true in photography in general, the more light one can collect, the better. Autonomous PDAF can have larger “pixels” than on sensor PDAF, whose “pixels” must be smaller than the regular pixels on the sensor, and they rob those pixels of some of the light. This makes the Bayer Transform Approximation algorithm, (BTA), —or, more generic, CTA, for Colour-Filter-Array Transform Approximation, for the inclusion of X-Trans and Foveon CFAs,— slightly more complex, as some pixels are getting less light than others would.
Long and short is that on-sensor PDAF is less reliable in low-light, than autonomous PDAF in SLRs, and impacts the CTA.
So it matters in the real world. Like I said, one YTer demonstrated the CTA issue in a video awhile back.
CCD, CMOS
Charge Coupled Diodes, (CCD), sensors are very good at many things; global shutter, fast response, high Dynamic Range, (DR), low electrical shot noise, et al. They are used in the best cine cameras. The problem is when a pixel gets over saturated with light, the sensor continues to release electrons, and they need somewhere to go. They go into the adjacent pixel closer to the read line.
This results in a streak down the image. For this reason, photographers using CCD sensors must ensure that no part of the entire scene, can get over saturated.
A Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor, (CMOS), sensor are very bad at certain things. Ignoring that for now, each pixel on a CMOS sensor can only release so many electrons and no more, no matter how many photons have critical hits. Therefore, a photographer using a CMOS sensor can concentrate on the exposure of his subject, and ignore the rest of the scene, allowing highlights to blow out if necessary, or if desired.
So it matters in the real world.
DSC
A Digital Still Camera, (DSC), is any digital camera designed for capturing still images, regardless of technology or design principles used in its manufacture. It is a broad umbrella term which stops someone from having to say, “DSLRs, MILCs, SLT, PNS, Bridge cameras, and digital rangefinders,” or, “all digital still cameras.” Simply say, “DSC.” This will exclude, of course, all cine cameras. They are a different kettle of fish. (…And why are there fish in the kettles in the first place?!?)
Some DSCs will create file names such as, “DSCxxxxx.| {dng}, {tiff}, {jpg}, {???} |
Does it matter as a still photographer? No, but it makes communication easier.
AF Calculation Speed
You are right. Like I said, once a certain speed is attained, faster does not necessarily make better. We agree. Tell Sony that. It is a selling point to their α-1 MILC.
The point is that. if one does not understand the technology, one may make rookie mistakes, such as underexpose their subjects because they are concerned about their immaterial background getting blown out, …or one may fall for the hype. I am sure that more than one persons bought the Sony α-1 because it makes 120 AF calculations per second, and did not stop to consider whether it focuses well in low-light conditions. (Does it? I do not know. Maybe it does! I still have not looked into the Sony α-1).
I remember one YTer showing a scene of a grossly underexposed man on a boardwalk by the beach, with a clear blue sky, with the sun behind him, explaining why one has to use the histogram to not blow out the highlights so that the details can be recovered in post. What details?!? It was a clear blue sky, with a grossly under-exposed subject, who just lost details to the shadows! However, If he had a CCD camera, that may have been a necessity, to prevent streaks down his frame.
One word; fill-flash. Fine, technically two, but….
Yes, the proof of the pudding would have been in the tasting,* but knowing the recipe would be a great help.
Let those who want to ignore the technical aspect of photography do so at their own peril.
*P.s., no, the proper saying, “the proof of the pudding is in the tasting,” is also immaterial, and it will NOT make you a better photographer to know it. It is not a technical aspect of photography.
LOL. SMH
C'mon, man. All this "knowledge" hasn't improved your photography after 40 years. 4 decades. You should focus more on improving than lecturing. Let the technicians deal with the techy stuff; and you deal with the actual photography stuff.
"Those who can, do; those who can't, {tries to} teach."
Like I said, …was not for your benefit.
The simple fact is if you can't take amazing photos on any currently available camera system, the fault is yours, not the camera.
The small amount of work you have online is pretty poor.
Maybe you should keep practicing, instead of talking crap on social media.
Maybe you should read my respond to the “geek speak” comment. If one does not know the limitations of ones gear, one may fail without realising why.
Yes, one ought to be able to take great pictures with any gear, but one needs to understand that the techniques used with one type of gear do not necessarily transfer to another. (B&W film, vs dye sublimation colour film, vs slide film, vs CCD sensor, vs CMOS sensor, etc).
We have not used linear polarisers since AF systems, (and they are perfectly fine for CDAF). We cannot simply use an orange/red filter to darken the sky with colour film. A UV filter is useless for most digital photography, but still essential for film, (both colour and B&W). Many other examples, including the saturated sensor example I gave earlier.
Knowing ones equipment is necessary.
Necessary for what?
Your work sucks.
Many of the best photographers are artists, who don't have the first clue about gear.
Response to….
…first paragraph → …read my respond to the “geek speak” comment, and my last post, again.
…Second paragraph → your opinion of my work is irrelevant to the facts. Even more irrelevant since your profile is very empty.
…Third paragraph → true, undoubtedly true,… and they could be even better if they did have a clue.
You view an absence of evidence as evidence of absence. You're not exactly a genius level intellect, are you...
Now, stop speaking to me.
The solution to that is for you to stop responding to me.
…Ah! Which one of us lack genius level intellect now, huh!
…And, no. I view absence of evidence as absence of evidence. That is to say, those who do not show their work ought not say, «your work sucks»! What was so hard about that? …and no comebacks about, “but I show my work in other places.” Does not count when your profile does not link to those other places.
“But,” one might say, “I have my profile set to only show my details to those who follow me.” It comes back to the same thing; one ought only say, «your work sucks,» to those who can see your own work.
“But Google still works, Silly!” Tru dat,… and I am not working that hard for someone's whose response to facts are an unsolicited criticism.
Goodday, Blake.
I did Google you.
Your work is bland, derivative, insipid crap.
I guess that's why you bump up your self-esteem by posting TLDR in places like this.
Maybe it will help when you buy the new Pentax.
I said, “Goodday!”
(Cannot believe you did not see that coming, and, no, I meant me using Google on you, —and no one on Fstoppers has to Google me to see my work— but, you cannot follow a conversation so…).
I forgot to add the word *forgettable*.
Your turn.
Game over. You win!
Have fun with your trophy.
But you said you would keep responding as long as I commented.
Maybe you should buy a Pentax; apparently it will allow you to take better photos.
Hi Karim,
First off, I just want to apologize. Over the last two months I’ve been going through a serious breakup, and it’s made me act out in ways that I’m ashamed of. I wasn’t living up to the man that I want to be when I had this interaction with you, and I’m sorry.
Sincerely,
Edward BIake
"No bright light in the viewfinder. (Especially in dark venues, or night)"
You can turn down the "bright light" or switch off the additional info so that there is only the scenery you take photos of visible, thus there will be no bright light.
Especially in low light situations the EVF is much better because you can see where you get the focus while on the OVF you can't discern anything.
In fact mirrorless have a additional advantage in dark venues - you can check the photo through your EVF and not disturb any bystanders with your bright screen of the DSLR.
"Full resolution viewfinder (not measured in megapixels, because, I can see it with my eye)"
Mirrorless: Zoomable, much easier to get the focus with manual focus lenses.
"I can actually see how bright/dark is the actual scene."
Which doesn't mean anything because the camera is a light gathering device and the photo you take only depends on the length of time you expose and not how bright the scene actually is.
"in theory, a mirrorless camera can have other advantages, such as being smaller, lighter"
Not only in theory. And comparable lenses are smaller and lighter as well - at least when you look at Canon. Granted, this has more to do with the new mount, but this would not exist if they had not moved to mirrorless.
«…thus there will be no bright light.»
“…thus, the bright light will not be quite as bright.” There, I fixed it for you. One is still staring into a light source which is brighter than the ambient light. Still an issue. If one can actually turn it down so low that it is NOT brighter than the ambient, then one is back to an OVF.
«…see where you get the focus while on the OVF you can't….»
I have been shooting for years in the CAC/SPSCCA theatre, in the dark, with my K-1000 and SF-1, with OVF, and trust me, even with manual focus on the K-1000, I got focus. I also did a great deal of night photography and other low-light scenarios. Never had a problem.
I do have to admit that the latest Pentax offerings with non-changeable screens do not default to have the best screens for low-light focusing, but their low-light AF* is so good, that it usually is not a problem at all. However, for their systems with interchangeable screens, they do give options to make low-light focusing just as good as in the past.
*Yes, whereas many systems, including other DSLR systems, have boasted faster AF than Pentax in bright sunlight, Pentax has generally «kick the teeth in of any top» DSC in low-light AF. Another disadvantage of on-sensor PDAF.
«…you can check the photo through your EVF….»
I ain't got time for chimping. I am in the middle of a shoot. Besides, I already know what I shot, and, if needed, can shoot it again. Really, what am I checking the photo for? What did I do back in the film days? Sure, I know that in some situations, chimping can be of some value, but those times are very few and very far between.
«…the photo you take only depends on the length of time you expose and not how bright the scene actually is.»
Wow! I am curious as to where you learned photography. You should teach a class on how LV is totally irrelevant to exposure.
But, that being said, let me presume that you are correct. How will I, an experienced photographer with over 40 years experience, know what length of time to use?….
Think about it.
No,… no,… keep thinking.
Consider the part where I said, «I can actually see how bright/dark is the actual scene.» It might help.
Also, do not say, “reflective light meter,” because now we have moved from VFR and gone into IFR, and that means that any viewfinder is now irrelevant.
«…at least when you look at Canon.»
Canon compared to what? Other Canons? I am curious to do this again, comparing to Pentax, but I really cannot waste my time. You actually may be correct, because Canon has released several new bodies and lenses since I last did this, (and Canon lost). but it it pointless. The K-3 series professional system is small and light enough. The K-1 professional system will probably not be much bigger/heavier that it makes that much of a difference.
If I want a small, light, professional workhorse, I will go with Olympus. Yes, the Sony system I compared above may actually beat the Olympus, but does it beat it or Pentax on WR? They say the best camera is the one you have with you, (which is the stupidest advice I have ever heard), but which camera are you going to have with you in the rainy season of the rain forest while it is raining?
Yes, small/light is great for hiking, but not so much if one has to keep it protected. (I am looking at you, Sony, but admittedly I have not checked out the ɑ-1 yet).
I sure don't miss the noisy mirror! I love silent shutter!
I was a mirrorless poo pooer until they did what they did with the focusing system. I thought my 5DIV did quite well until I did a Canon day and used the R5. I now have an R5 and the focusing improvement was worth the price of admission.
SLRs are lovely tools, but mirrorless just has too many advantages. I do events and portraits and I just hold down the eye AF button, compose and shoot. No more chimping, no more metering surprises, and almost every shot is in focus.
Haha, the "iconic shutter sound". That one is good.
I am happy to get rid of it with electronic shutter and if I like it I can still use the mechanical one.
Haha no more KERPLUNK!? I miss the squeaky shutter in my Canon A1 lol but of course having the option to go silent is awesome.
Frankly, I got fed up with having a car crash go off in front of my face every time I pressed the shutter button. No regrets in changing to mirrorless. If I need a long-lasting battery, I grab the PowerCore 26800. End of problem.
Haha I love that analogy! A car crash LOL
The Z batteries for Sony are actually quite good. When they were new, I can go a weekend+ with a single battery. Fast forward 3 years later, 3 of the 4 I have can go about a day. The other about half a day…maybe less.
I love steamtrains but i'm using my system camera's for 95% of my shots during the last two years (still having one dslr).
Thanks for the entertaining video. I learned about photography in the '70's when digital and auto focus were fantasies. Soccer photography for the college paper took some effort with manual focus & zoom followed by wet developing. After 3 semester courses in college & later got a used Mamiya RB67, I let it slip for 20 years. I'm very happy with my Canon EOS R, although the 644 page manual took lots more time than my first 60 minute lesson in 1971 (after which I could handle almost any manual camera of the day - except view cameras.). Can't say I miss the DSLRs as I never used one.
It's amazing how far the technology has come. I grew up in the 80s/90s, and the cameras I couldn't have dreamed of the cameras I use today. But I miss developing and printing my own film.
About the only thing I miss from the film days is the sweet sound of a Hasselblad at 1/30 of a second.
Just use your dlsr then. Problem solved!
Zac then I will just find something else to complain about! 😆
On some DSLRs, they offer interchangeable screens, including diagonal split, and prism split, as well as clear & matte areas for focusing. (I could never understand for the life of me why anyone would make either a vertical or horizontal split).
I have read all the replies and all sorta miss the point bragging about this and that! First to be fair is the dynamic range of the early DSLR and the processing programs of the past that gave results really no different than using SLR and film. So we learned to bracket 3 at +/- 2EV where the mirror locked up and we got the colorful but over processed images with the old software that was available and some would say that's PS'ed not real, a comment that would dig at a photographers soul as to not have something that looked real but cartoonish! Yes I went mirrorless in 2014 and selected the A7S mainly it did 5 at +/- 3ev not 3 at +/- 2ev like my Canon T2i that the other Sony A7 and A7R, it was the HDR era and thought more is better. I also got more out of my T2i by using the Promote Control that let you do most any +/- ev and at a great number of images you desired BUT and a BIG BUT is only one or two programs could handle and process like the $80 Photomatix when PS and Lr both cost $800 each and each full update the cost of a T2i and two kit lenses, few young do not know and us older have forgotten how bad SW was! The third image is with ghosting turned off. To overcome the lack of sensor dynamic range we bracketed for an image that looked like what we saw, but many went overboard with the cartoon look (it was the thing). But also it is and was the only way to do a indoor capture with a clear and sharp out a window on a sunny or even lit night even with a moon sharp before we had merging of images. SW today is Sooo! great and cameras with IBIS combined with OSS lenses you can do miracle captures.
like the last image using my new (2017) A7Rii with the FE 12-24mm f/4 G doing bracketed 3 at +/- 2ev handheld because I forgot my adapter for camera to tripod at a time everyone else needed sticks to do long exposures, I even thought was needed. But when others using Canon and Nikon on sticks I was walking around and laying on the ground around them even looking straight up at each stop with clicking sounds that the others thought I was just playing and while some shot with 16mm and most 35mm I got the 12mm shots the widest even the guide never saw. And to be honest it was just a test at the first stop and a look at the result I saw, if anything one image would be good, one reason for bracketing you get more to use at different levels when you know you will never be back for another try. The 1st is a edit with the new Lr HDR with a old 2013 T2i image, the second using the Promote Control with about 13 +/- 1ev, after ordering dinner trying to capture a sunset from indoors using Photomatix. Real photographers (not just pros) see a challenge in what they see and with knowledge of the tools try and try again, Pros sorta get stuck with what sells and stop the challenge. If you have those old bracketed images you may want to do another processing, you will find the old cartoonish image is now gone and it will be like time travel backward and more enjoyable.