It is hard to visit any photography website without noticing extensive fanfare being paid to the mirrorless camera niche. Some tout it as the savior of the mid-to-high end camera market. Others have dubbed it the “DSLR killer.” A number of prominent photographers have created videos and articles articulating how mirrorless innovations caused them to shed pounds from their bag and reintroduce them to the joy of photography. And why shouldn’t they? The market for traditional point-and-shoot cameras is in a free fall as smartphones increase in usage, quality, and capabilities. Traditional DSLR sales continue to fall as well. The industry certainly needs something to cheer about. And of course, photography websites need something to write about.
There is a healthy amount of innovation taking place in the mirrorless market. Sony, Fuji, and Olympus would like to “change the game” by introducing disruptive technology and reaping the benefits that follow. They have introduced new camera bodies that pack notable technological improvements in very small packages. Even if we are not mirrorless fans or customers at this point, we should all be thankful for the technological improvements taking place on this front. Nikon and Canon have been slow to cannibalize their DSLR sales, but they may not have much choice considering the downward trend in DSLR sales.
That said, I believe the actual weight savings of mirrorless cameras over traditional DSLRs are somewhat exaggerated in the press. To hear some talk, you would think that every mirrorless lens weighs but small fraction of its DSLR equivalent, and that the traditional 30lb DSLR backpack you take on your mountainous vacations will eventually be reduced to the weight of a few pieces of fruit, and fit in a fanny pack once you switch to a mirrorless system. Ok, I am exaggerating a bit, but not by much. There are indeed reasons to be excited about mirrorless cameras and the potential of this technology, but I would suggest that size and weight should not be at the top of this list.
I decided to compare a Sony A7II Body to a Nikon D750 Body as well put a variety of lenses on the scale, in a humble attempt to add some perspective to the mirrorless hype. This article is not meant to represent a head-to-head comparison of both cameras across the full range of features and functionality. Read on…
Table of Contents
Camera Bodies
Handling
The A7II 24MP mirrorless camera is an impressive gem. My concern with it, however, is the same I had when I first got back into photography in 2007 and handled a Canon Rebel – nice camera but too small for my extra-large hands. The same held true for a Fuji XT-1 that I owned for a short time. I find cameras such as the Nikon D7100, D810, and D750 much more comfortable to hold.
I am even less enthusiastic regarding how these smaller cameras feel with larger lenses attached. Any camera body can feel tolerable in your hands with a small featherweight prime lens on it. Put a 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 on a camera and walk around all day with it, carry it one-handed, and you will quickly realize how balanced and comfortable it is – or not. I regularly hold my D810 with an 80-400mm lens comfortably in one hand. Given the diminutive grip size of the mirrorless entries, I am not sure I would feel as comfortable doing the same.
In the Great Race to save weight and size, I believe the mirrorless manufacturers may have sacrificed some handling characteristics for a fairly substantial portion of the population. With the changes Sony made to expand the grip size of the A7II, it seems to have gotten the message that smaller grip sizes may negatively impact overall comfort and feel. In order to address these issues, however, Sony had to add a bit of size and weight to the original A7. The result, of course, was a body that is not that much smaller or lighter than the D750, thus negating what Sony had been stressing as one of its main selling points of the A7 style bodies. Surprisingly, there were no ads claiming, “After touting the smaller size of our A7 full frame mirrorless camera, guess what? We made it bigger and heavier!” Even with the improved grip, however, the A7II may be a bit small for some to comfortably hold, particularly with a longer lens attached.
If I had a word of advice for Nikon or Canon (they haven’t been calling for a while now…), when they finally jump into the DX and FX market with mirrorless entries, I would suggest making them closer to the DX body size (height) than the current Sony A7II. Do not expect photographers with medium-to-large hands to grip their camera and lens with 2 or 2 ½ fingers. Saving a few ounces of weight at the expense of a comfortable grip is not worth the trade-off. Those of you with smaller hands are likely to disagree with my perspective on this matter.
Weight
All things being equal – such as the number of shots per battery and a sampling of lenses across different focal lengths and apertures – the weight benefits of mirrorless, at least for this comparison, are far less than you may have been led to believe. The Sony A7II Sony NP-FW50 Lithium-Ion Rechargeable Battery (1020mAh) gets up to 340 shots per charge (and much less under some conditions). The Nikon EN-EL15 Lithium-Ion Battery 1900mAh) gets 1230 shots per charge. If I planned on going out for a day trip, in order to make things equal, I would plan on taking 4 Sony batteries to 1 Nikon battery. Yes, that would give me an extra 110 shots with the Sony A7II (1340 compared to 1230), but I am not going to quibble on this one. Some Sony fans may cry foul, either due to their belief that I should not be using a 4:1 ration for Sony-to-Nikon battery comparison, or that they never need more than 2 or 3 batteries while out shooting for a day. Fair enough. But in my book (and this article), I am sticking to the 4:1 ratio. Adding a few extra batteries to the mix reduces the Sony A7II’s weight advantage over the Nikon, while bringing their costs closer in line as well.
The total weight difference between the Sony A7II and Nikon D750, taking the battery concerns into account: 112 grams or 4 ounces. To add some context – 112 grams/4 ounces is less than the weight of a banana or my Invicta watch. Not exactly a “revolution” on the weight reduction front. If there is a reason to buy a A7II instead of a Nikon D750, weight doesn’t seem to be it, despite claims to the contrary.
Mirrorless or DSLR?
If camera and lens weight are a significant concern for you, your first question should not be “Mirrorless vs. DSLR?” but rather “FX, DX, or other smaller sensor?” As we will see in the next section, mirrorless lenses are not guaranteed to be any lighter than their DSLR equivalents, despite the many advertisements to the contrary. Simply put, the size of the sensor drives the size of the lens. Given recent advancements in sensor technology, I am hard-pressed to recommend FX (mirrorless or DSLR) to anyone other than the most demanding photographers or those with unlimited funds (I don’t personally know anyone in this latter group, but suspect they are out there). I suggest that anyone looking to buy a new camera system begin by realistically consider their needs, and then price out a few systems in FX, DX, etc. for both DSLR and mirrorless offerings and find the sweet spot between features, costs, and the weight of the system. Simply deciding on an DX rather than an FX system can significantly reduce both weight and costs.
I also listed the weight of some other common items that I wear, have in my pocket, or might toss in my backpack for a day’s shooting. I don’t expect to see Sony hyping the weight savings of its A7II as being the approximate weight of ½ of an avocado anytime soon, but that is the difference between these two cameras after accounting for the differences in the batteries. I added this chart to bring a bit of perspective to some of the nonsensical arguments people engage in regarding relatively trivial variations in weight between one product and another.
While I appreciate reductions in the weight of my equipment as much as anyone, saving a few ounces here or there on any single piece of gear is simply not a big deal. I get even less excited about the weight of mirrorless systems when considering the weight of a full lens suite that I might take on a photography vacation to the mountains of Colorado or Alberta. If you are an elderly person or experience chronic neck or back pain, however, you may feel very differently about saving some weight, particularly when that weight is dangling from your neck all day. Then again, if you have such issues, FX – in any form – should be crossed off your list. Period.
I find it rather odd that given the extremely impressive results turned in by Nikon D7200 Review, the fact that slim, lightweight, ubiquitous smartphones – which seem to be getting better by the day – are killing off what is left of the soon-to-be-extinct point-and-shoot market, and Sony, Fuji, and Olympus are touting smaller, innovative mirrorless entries, Nikon wants everyone to jump to FX camera bodies and the heavier, more expensive lenses that come with them. You have to wonder…
Lenses
There are no magical properties of mirrorless technology that will result in lenses that are significantly lighter than their DSLR equivalents. Sensor shifting image stabilization technology can alleviate the need to put image stabilization technology in each lens, potentially reducing the size and weight, but this capability is not exclusive to mirrorless cameras. My first DSLR, a Pentax K10D featured this technology in 2007. Camera manufacturers may be able to use a shorter flange on mirrorless lenses due to the proximity of the lens to the sensor. This will save some weight, but is not going to produce any significant results.
A few things about the chart below: 1. I do not mean to imply that each of these lenses is a direct match for the other. I would certainly not make the case that the Nikon 24-85mm lens is the equivalent of the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 lens. I merely used the Nikon 24-85mm to show that it is possible to make a lens with a similar focal length and aperture with similar weight in this particular range for FX DSLRs. 2. You may disagree with my specific lens comparisons, but at the present time, there is not a 1:1 comparison of the Sony and Nikon lens line-ups (Canon and Nikon are obviously much better matched lens per lens). I used the Nikon version of the Tamron 90m macro since it matched the focal length of the Sony equivalent. Thus this chart is to give you some examples of how similar (but not exact) lenses equate for each respective mount/manufacturer. 3. The important issue is that the majority of these lenses, such as the 70-200mm f/4s, are pretty close in weight. None of these differences are very meaningful, except for the 16-35mm f/4 match-up. Then again, if I were in the market for a wide-angle FX zoom today, I would probably pick up the new 18-35mm,forego lens stabilization as it is not critical within this focal length range, and find a way to make do with the loss of 2mm. The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is probably not a fair comparison to the Sony Sonnar 35mm f/2.8, but Sony does not have a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 equivalent at this time.
If you loaded all of the lenses listed in two separate bags, their total weight would only vary by a mere 195 grams or 6.9 ounces. To put that in perspective, that is more than the weight of a banana, but not as much as an avocado – for 9 lenses. Let that one sink in a bit before rushing out to trade in your FX DSLR for an FX mirrorless kit.
Summary
The total weight difference between the Sony A7II, the Nikon D750, batteries, and 9 equivalent lenses is a whopping (Camera: 112 grams/4 ounces + Lenses: 195 grams/6.9 ounce) 307 grams or 10.8 ounces. That is less than the weight of 2 bananas. Yawn…
Mirrorless technology continues to advance at a rapid pace. But much of the hype about weight savings is just that – hype. Don’t be taken in by it. The size of the sensor, not whether the camera has a mirror, is the primary driver with respect to the size and weight of the lenses. If weight is a critical concern, take a hard look at the type of systems you can build around each of the sensor sizes – FX, DX, and smaller, relative to cost, quality, and weight. Immediately cross FX off the list unless you never intend to shoot with anything other a 20mm to 50mm prime f/1.8 lens. Mirrorless prices are coming down overall, but they still tend to command a premium over their DSLR counterparts. I would give the edge to DSLRs over mirrorless offerings for now, primarily in consideration of value, features, and lens availability, but DSLR’s advantages are quickly being eroded. While you may find a few mirrorless cameras and lenses that are a few ounces lighter than their DSLR brethren, there is no free lunch – the lens must cover the sensor in the camera – and that means a minimal amount of glass, plastic, metal, and electronics per given sensor size.
I shoot with a D810 and am quite pleased with it, despite its weight. I readily admit that I occasionally fantasize about featherweight camera systems, particularly after an 8 mile hike in the Rocky Mountains. If I were starting over today, I would be very tempted to buy a D7200, leave the new 16-80mm 2.8-4.0 lens attached to it 90% of the time, rely on a 70-200mm f/4 as my next go-to lens, and opt for a few 1.8G primes, a Tokina 11-20mm, and a new 300mm f/4. I might add a 1.4 T/C for wildlife, a Tamron 90mm for macro, and a Nikon 10.5 fisheye for fun. If I wanted to increase the D7200’s buffer capacity a notch for wildlife or action shots, I would simply switch from 14 bit lossless to 12 bit lossless compression, as John Sherman pointed out in an excellent article, and fire away. I would bite the bullet on low light capabilities and hope that Topaz DeNoise could work some magic on my higher ISO shots. But as Nikon D7200 review, the D7200 already does an impressive job of managing noise.
Caveats and critiques of the mirrorless weight “advantage” aside, I believe mirrorless technology will ultimately win the battle with DSLRs. Because of weight advantage? Nope. Mirrorless will win the battle because it eliminates a major electro-mechanical component. Eliminating the mirror reduces engineering challenges as well as the parts necessary to make these components work reliably and at high speeds. Throughout the history of machinery, eliminating electro-mechanical components in favor of purely electrical equivalents has been a key step in the progression of technology.
Eliminating the mirror also translates into improved reliability (less mechanical parts that can move and break), offers customers the benefits of offering high shutter speeds (historically only available in costly high-end cameras such as the Nikon D4 and the Canon 1DX) in lower-cost cameras, and reduces maintenance headaches for consumers and manufacturers alike. In my opinion, these are the real benefits of mirrorless technology. There is little doubt that mirrorless technology will ultimately be the foundation of future mid-to-high-end cameras. The slight weight reduction gained by eliminating the mirror component is the icing on the cake – not the cake itself.
Sony is obviously being very aggressive on the pricing front in order to get a foothold in the market and establish itself as a clear alternative to Nikon and Canon. The good news is that the turmoil in the camera market has turned up the heat on DSLR manufacturers to increase their pace of innovation and provide more value to consumers in order to drive sales. It is only a matter of time before Nikon and Canon are forced to respond.
Now if Nikon and Canon can only figure out how to introduce DX and FX mirrorless models while preserving consumers’ investments in a combined total of approximately 190 million lenses…
Lots of cherry picking and narrowness in this article. Are you here reading because you are in the process of making an informed choice between two systems, or just looking to validate your opinions in an echo chamber? I’d suggest looking through the countless other articles and videos out there to get a broader understanding from photographers who have extensively used both or switched systems. Photographers are usually knowledgeable about their craft, especially the pros. People aren’t just going to sell off the gear that they are used to at a monetary loss switching to a new system if they don’t see it as a better fit for them.
I’ve shot with DSLRs for 13 years and mirrorless for 6 years, with 3 years of overlap. There are positives and negatives to both. You need to consider your shooting style, lifestyle, budget, and the actual kit that you would put together to fit your needs.
You write: ” If you are an elderly person or experience chronic neck or back pain, however, you may feel very differently about saving some weight, particularly when that weight is dangling from your neck all day”
Anyone that dangles a camera on a strap around their neck has not bothered to think through why it is giving them pain, and that is not very bright. The right way to use a camera strap is over one shoulder, with the camera dangling by the opposite hip. No strain on the neck that way.
There is another aspect, which i ve never seen talking about, is sensor exposure. When changing lenses on a mirrorless camera, the sensor is directly exposed to the elements, resulting in rapid dust accumulation, while in a DSLR, the sensor is “protected” by the mirror and the shutter…
Camera weight is synonymous with inertia. I think more inertia in a camera reduces camera shake that is introduced just by holding your camera. So I favor heavy bodies and heavy lenses. I don’t care about the effort I must expend to carry a heavy camera. I think the mirrorless fad is simply a ploy by manufacturers to accumulate market share. Someone started the fad and now everyone must get on the bus or else. Besides, I can use any of my DSLRs to flip the mirror up during the shot. Then the sensor turns off, saving the battery in the process. I am not getting rid of my DSLRs.
Bob, We may have some common themes in our backgrounds. How many folks would no what “binary large object bits” are? That aside I enjoyed this article while also being amused. I, too, have large hands…older now I can still palm a basketball with two fingers, and the little cameras are awkward.
Were my hands smaller I would jump all over Olympus mirrorless cameras. They are extremely well made, and have excellent technology. I chose Panasonic because video intrigued me, and my Nikon cameras didn’t do video, and the D7000 didn’t do it well. Panasonic and Olympus have excellent in body image stabilization…thus their lenses are lighter. They are also interchangeable between brands. More lens options than Sony.
You did pick a rather large mirrorless in the Sony Ar series. However, all your points are well taken. If you go on a hike you should have a wide angle prime, and a telephoto – at least out west where the scenery is broad and large.
With Nikon and Canon taking serious steps into the mirrorless world it will be the defacto standard. They had no choice if they wanted to stay in the camera business.
I see you are from the Pittsburgh area. I married two women from Pennsylvania. One from McKeesport, and she was and still is a gem of a person. The other was from Philadelphia. I trust
her the same as I do rattlesnakes here in California and Arizona. Actually, I see more snakes in California.
Seems like cherry picking to me (i.e. an article basically comparing two full frame sensor cameras). The lenses on two full frame sensor cameras will be very comparable in weight. And if you weight the cameras and 8 or 9 lenses for each, essentially cancelling out the small weight advantage offered by the Sony A7 series, then you’ve likewise got very comparable packages.
Of course when I put my Olympus E-M5 Mark II with a prime lens next to the cameras in your article, all of a sudden the weight/size savings are very easily apparent. Even if I have a couple other M4/3 lenses in my bag, the weight savings are very easily apparent.
And then of course there are the technological advantages of an electronic viewfinder. But hey, horses for courses.
Very interesting article. Thanks. I came to the same conclusion a while back. My friend boasted the lightness of his mirrorless camera. I nodded. We were shooting together. I asked him how many batteries he had on board. Five. I had one. I mentally added up the weight of five batteries and realised I was a not going to save weight by buying a sony. In addition, I was told by someone else that, if I bought such a camera, and added a canon mount in order to use my existing raft of canon lenses, the adaptor would immediately nullify any weight savings. I have stayed with my old gear, and done pilates at the gym in order to get stronger to carry it :-) (I am not being facetious, I really did).
Louise,
Indeed, the mirrorless weight advantages are much less than what many would have us believe. As with any industry, the camera industry is not above hyping the “new new thing” in order to generate buzz and excitement and eventually sales. I recently picked up a Nikon 70-300mm AF-P lens and have been amazed by sharpness, focus speed, and VR. You can buy them new for $396 at B&H. You can even try an import at $239. If you wish to save weight, there are many options other than going mirrorless.
Best Regards,
Bob
I bought into the hype.
Yup I bought a Sony A7 with kit lens, a 55 1.8, a 16-35mm F4 and then a 70-200F4. I was going to use it for travel photography.
I do shoot professionally. I use all Nikon gear. D3s, D4s 70-200 f2.8, 300 F2.8, 200-400 F4, 24-70 f2.8, 16mm, 16-35mm F4, 14-24mm F2.8 and lots of supporting gear for my work.
But I thought, all this gear is way too heavy, Sony will save my back and give me the same great results, Right……. Well not exactly.
The Sony autofocus was not all that great with moving subjects or in low light.
The sharpness was great, maybe as good as the Nikon gear. But waiting for the focus to acquire, meant I missed shots that the Nikons would nail much easier.
In the end I wouldn’t trust the Sony A7 gear for my paying gigs.I never used the Sony for client paying jobs.I just couldn’t trust the results. It was the autofocus, it just wasn’t good enough and the weight saving was a non starter.
In the end I sold all my Sony gear and purchased a Nikon D750 for travel photography. Used my 16-35 f4, 70-200 F4 and the rest of the Nikon kit as needed. The D750 performed as well or better then the Sony A7 in HDR and much better in autofocus situations.
The weight is not all that different between a Sony A7 system and a Nikon D750 system.
I still use a Nikon D3s, D4s for the jobs that pay the bills. The D750 is making inroads to the paying gigs.
Before you jump on the Sony A7 band wagon read about the hype first………I wish I had, it would have saved me a lot of money and time.
Best of luck.
Mike.
Mike,
As I said, I believe mirrorless holds a lot of promise. But like any new technology, mirrorless has become the new nirvana for some, thinking it will magically make photography more fun, improve their photos, and eliminate all the headaches associated with traditional DSLRs, mainly size and weight. As you and others have cited, and I attempted to point out, that is simply not the case. Hype runs rampant with any new product/technology introduction, but as consumers, we should always evaluate such claims with a bit of skepticism. It may not make us popular with those who first-in-line kool-aid drinkers, but at least our wallets won’t be lightened in the mad scramble to buy the latest and greatest.
Bob
>> mainly size and weight
I see this hype to, but I disagree that they are “mainly” or even particularly important. Yes, I carry a smaller camera around more than a Canon 1D, but that’s not what I like most about my Sony mirrorless. I like the fact that it can do what no DSLR will ever be able to do. Are there trade offs, of course there are, but I can live with that. There are always trade offs. Some of the things my Sony A7RII can do which no DSLR will ever be able to do.
1/ Eye-focus. This is a fantastic feature, particularly when shallow depth-of-field is desired. I can point the camera at my subject, push eye-focus, and the camera will keep the closest eye of the subject in focus at all times. No DSLR can do this. Not now. Not ever.
2/ Continuous facial recognition. Sure, DSLRs can do this, but nowhere near as well as the Sony. It locks on to a face and “never” lets go.
3/ Face registration focus. With the Sony I can register faces to focus on, and I can prioritize them. No DSLR has this feature, and (I know, never is a long time) will never have it. Is it useful? Very. Let me use an example. I’m (a guest with a camera, but not the annoying kind) at a wedding. I have registered the bride, the groom, the mother of the bride, the mother of the groom etc with my camera. Prioritized. This means that my camera will always (unless I do not want it to) focus on the bride if she is in frame, the groom if she’s not, the mother of the bride if neither, etc. This is fantastically useful.
4/ Lock on AF. This is like face registration AF, but for objects rather than people. Find the subject that you want to shoot, focus on it, chose lock on, and the camera will (with a decent success rate if the object is well defined) focus on that subject, no matter what you do with the camera or how the subject moves.
5/ Lenses need no micro adjustment. Since the PDAF sensors are on the chip, there is no alignment problems, and there is no need for micro adjustments for the camera/lens combination.
These things are never going to be available on a DSLR at the level they are going to be on mirrorless. The reason is simple. A mirrorless camera can use sensor data to enable features like this. In other words, with a decently fast CPU and a full image sensor, the camera can do a lot of intelligent processing that is impossible with a DSLR. Impossible because the imaging sensor is obstructed by the mirror before pressing the shutter, so the imaging sensor can not assist the camera with anything at all. This is why mirrorless eventually will kill DSLRs, having a fast computer continuously assisting you when shooting is invaluable.
Terje,
All good points, but the main hype is on the size/weight front. With respect to the benefits you listed, they may appeal to some people. For others, they may have no appeal whatsoever. I have no interest in them per se.
For infrared photography, however, I think mirrorless has many benefits. I will probably switch to mirrorless in the next year or so.
Bob
>> All good points, but the main hype is on the size/weight front
Actually, I disagree on this. For some of the M4/3 cameras this has been harped on a bit and it is mentioned (and I do appreciate it) for most of the mirrorless offerings (they are smaller), but it has not been the main hype for the Sony mirrorless cameras at all. The A7S series has been hyped on low-light, the A6x00 series has been hyped on focus speed, and the A7R series has been hyped on being the ultimate photo/video hybrid solution.
>> For others, they may have no appeal whatsoever
I don’t think anyone can deny the fact that having the ability to use the entire image sensor to assist the photographer in his job is currently a boon or holds a promise of helpful features in the future. Some people will always go “I don’t understand why they do that, I see no benefit”. The same people said the same thing about adding autofocus to professional camera gear (it’ll never be as good as my focus capabilities) or moving from film to digital (digital will never have the same quality as film).
My prediction is that within ten years, cameras with mirrors will be anachronisms. They simply do not make sense anymore. Well, for a limited market, the sports segment, they still have a small advantage, but it’ll be gone by this time next year (is my prediction). The main advantage for DSLRs today is fast follow-focus and very little viewfinder blackout when shooting. A long viewfinder blackout makes it hard to follow the action while shooting, and fast follow-focus is obvious.
I have not seen the A6500 but saw a report stating it had “zero” viewfinder blackout when shooting, and the follow-focus on that series is already quite amazing (for mirrorless). By the next generation they will be completely caught up.
Terje,
The size and weight have indeed comprised much of the mirrorless hype. That’s not to say that other features haven’t been mentioned, but clearly the mirrorless “sell” has been on these fronts. If you back to my article, you will see that I do believe mirrorless is the future of digital cameras, for all the reason I and others have cited.
That said, the mirrorless proponents have been too quick to declare the DSLR dead. It is not. Mirrorless sales have seen an uptick, but remember that there are nearly 200 million DSLR lenses for Nikon and Canon in the field. Expecting users to simply chuck that many lenses and go mirrorless is not very realistic. Your comment that DSLRs “don’t make sense anymore” ignores this fact. It also ignores the fact that DSLRs still offer very good value and performance. Not to worry – DSLRS will still be selling next year at this time, albeit at a reduced volume.
The bigger problem for the camera companies such as Canon and Nikon will be finding a reason for any smartphone user to ever upgrade to a DSLR or a Mirrorless offering, particularly as smartphones continue to suffice for many needs, get better with each cycle, and provide a level of utility (apps, phone, camera, messaging, etc.) not found in DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras.
Don’t be surprised if iPhone users jump to a new iCamera from Apple someday, complete with a much less complicated IOS interface, which eliminates the gazillion complicated menu choices in most Canon and Nikon offerings. Smartphone penetration is reaching a peak and users have less reasons to upgrade. Apple will need to leap into other consumer markets. Given the complexity of DSLRs and many people putting their DSLRs in P mode, I could easily see Apple making a move in this area.
Bob
I really get hyped by those technology , I am an amateur photographer and having bad time focusing on my gf face >< out of 10 pictures I got 3-4 that look good . My Nikon 5100 have no EVF and I usually shot in manual mode so the pic got overexposure or underexposure a lot and that annoy me :(
I wonder is Sony EVF and focus that great for amateur like me , or I should improve my shooting technique instead ? Any idea ? ( or should I stop using manual mode and go for A or P instead ? When shooting portrait ? Thank
PS sorry for bad grammar I am not a native speaker
All that new technology is great but it won’t make you a better photographer.
If you always rely on automatic modes you will never be a good photographer because you will never really understand what you are doing.
There is no right or wrong mode for shooting a portrait: they will all work if you understand what you are doing and why you are doing it.
I would advise you to learn how photography works and practice the techniques you have learned.
There are very few shortcuts – sorry.
Thank you Betty :)
I think I get the point, you are correct , it not my camera’s fault I do not get the good picture, it all about who shoot it and the technique!!
I have seen many great photographer in Flickr using just d5100 and produce very stunning picture .
It about your brain , your idea of work. Photographer is like an artist , it did not depend on how expensive your canvas was it depend on skill. I got it. ^^ thanks
You should certainly learn how to use your camera in manual mode, but I don’t recommend using manual focus on a standard DSLR. It doesn’t make any sense. It is really hard to focus manually on a DSLR not equipped with manual focus assistance. In general, there is very little reason to use manual focus on a modern camera. With the important exception of when shooting video.
Until you learn the basics, you’ll probably be most comfortable shooting in Aperture priority mode with auto focus. Most of your shots will be in focus and correctly exposed. Later, start working with manual mode to achieve certain results that are hard to achieve in aperture mode or shutter priority mode. This is particularly important if you shoot with (on or off camera) flash. In such cases I shoot all manual except for focus. I only use manual focus when I shoot video or when I shoot with legacy (manual focus) lenses.
When you get to the point of shooting with manual focus lenses, you are going to be better off with a mirrorless camera than a DSLR, a lot better off. Mirrorless cameras make manual focus fun again, but there is no real reason to use manual focus normally.
Remember, no camera in the world is going to make your pictures look better. A good photographer will get better pictures with a ten year old phone than someone who buys the latest and greatest, but doesn’t know how to use it.
Thank you Terje B. For your advice :)
I am currenty using af with manual mode. But I think it need some skill to use this mode so I better use Aperture priorities mode as you said .
You and Betty are correct , there are no camera that make me a professional in one night..
camera is like an empty canvas… it can be a great picture or not is not depend on how expensive the canvas is but depend on artist. Taking a good picture need imagination, inspiration, experience and skill to achieved. I think I have calm down a lot and can use reason more than my urge to buy new technology thank to you two :)
Sorry my old friend I won’t blame you again. I promise I will bring you to your potential in the near future ><
By the way I am about to upgrade my camera to full frame in the next 3-4 months , I think I will calmly decided with reason, either mirrorless or DSLR should be fine. They all have pros and cons.
Thank you again :)
I know this thread is aging, but better late than never. So here is my opinion.
I shoot Canons and Fuji X-T10. Both make good pictures, but there are differences. First, I love holding the Canon but hate every minute that I must try to grasp the Fuji. There simply is not enough real estate to offer a place for the fingers (one hand hold) and the controls. I wish the Fuji guts could be removed and installed in the Canon body.
Controls on the Fuji are goofy. For example, the apt ring can be easily moved by accident. Indeed, when you hold the camera by the lens it is almost a given that the apt ring will be bumped off position. Why would you want the apt control on the lens in the firs place?
Another thing, why would you want to set the shutter speed with one control wheel and then be required to use still another control wheel to fine tune it? In general, I can do things with my Canon using one hand that require two hands on the Fuji. I can set up for a shot on the Canon in a fraction of the time needed for the Fuji.
I shot a Leica back in the sixties and seventies. Those were not the good old days; today is the good old days. Back in the day we would have given our eye teeth for the features found on today’s cameras. We did not adopt the mirror because we were just itching to have a mirror; we got the mirror because it was the only thing available to us. We dispised the mirror slap and vibration, but that was all we had.
In my opinion, all this retro business if bunk. Nobody really wants to go back. So why do we need cameras that are retro in design?
So, why do I shoot the Fuji whose form factor and operater interface are awful? I love the lenses. I love the picture quality. I love the EVF. I am willing to tolerate all the retro nonsense in order to get those advantges. This Fuji is turning in pictures that were never matched by my Leica back in the day. Morover, the EVF gives me instant creative choices that can only be guessed at when using the Canon’s disembodied OVF.
So, I agree with a previous commenter. If Nikon would introduce a mirrorless D750 with EVF at the A7II price I would instantly place my order.
I couldn’t agree more.
I shoot mostly with a Nikon D800E and long lenses but also have a Fuji XE-2 for walkabout photography. I love its quality but find the retro ‘features’ and outdated mechanical interface anachronistic and awkward. They make the process of image making slower and more difficult for no reason other than misbegotten nostalgia for a time when cameras were mechanical contraptions with minimal features. Now apparently it makes sense to combine a high tech photographic instrument with the handling qualities of an old clunker from yesteryear.
Totally meaningless comparison, as you have picked one of the heaviest mirrorless cameras versus an average FX camera. Quite obviously you didn’t use an Olympus EM5 Mk II (for example) as at 470g (or around 60% of the weight of the D750) it would have completely destroyed your later points. I own Olympus and Nikon btw.