8 ms·

My wife and I rented a full-frame mirrorless from the local camera store some months ago because she wanted nice pictures of our first puppy. As it turns out, t

• roland35 7y ago
  Congrats on your purchase, I wish I went with mirrorless when we bought our DSLR camera back around the birth of our first child! I thought I would want access to all the available lenses and accessories for an established product. But my photographer friend was right - mirrorless are better for amateurs and have one huge benefit: they can record video much more easily since they can focus and record at the same time.
  • mschuster91 7y ago
    If you're going from mirror-based to mirrorless and stay with the manufacturer, there's always adapters meaning you can continue to use your existing lens collection without losing functionality such as auto-focus or stabilizers. Switching manufacturers is a different beast however and you'll likely be limited to manual focus and a gimbal/in-sensor for stabilization.
  • Dork1234 7y ago
    Some Canon cameras (80D, 90D, 7D), have on dual pixel CMOS focus points that work in video mode. It is clear things are moving to mirrorless, but I feel we are still in the transition period for lens and focus technology. For certain type of photography either manual or traditional cross type focus points work best still. I think the biggest benefit of mirrorless cameras for amateurs is size and weight, the best camera is the one you have on you.
    • alistairSH 7y ago
      I'm a huge fan of the Olympus u4/3 range. The size is, for me, just right. Small enough to toss in a backpack with other things during travel and camping. Light enough to wear on a sling most of the day without discomfort. And still really nice photos. About once a year, I consider moving to Fuji. Or to some other larger format mirrorless. But, the size and weight penalty just isn't worth it. All that said, my wife's old Canon S90 compact is near the end of life. I thought about buying her a replacement, but I may just splurge on an iPhone XS instead.
      • acomjean 7y ago
        I'll second the canon micro 4/3 cameras. Great for traveling, very small, and good selection of lenses. On my last trip I think the weight/size of my dlsr equipment was cut in 1/3 with the same focal range. (the picture in this article is comparison of camera/lens size..) https://www.wildernessshots.com/why-you-dont-need-full-frame-camera/ https://www.wildernessshots.com/why-you-dont-need-full-frame...
        • Stratoscope 7y ago
          No doubt it was just a typo, but you mean Olympus and Panasonic, not Canon.
      • Glyptodon 7y ago
        I don't think micro 4/3ds gets enough credit for how convenient the smaller lenses are. I know full frame mirrorless is all the rage now, but even my dad's and brother's (respectively) APS-C gear is much larger and heavier when it comes to lenses.
  • DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    My wife is a part-time pro photographer in her 40's. She's looking to go mirrorless because, on long shoots, the weight of traditional cameras takes a toll on her neck and shoulders.
    • ubermonkey 7y ago
      The great news is that there are some awesome full-frame mirrorless bodies out there. Of course, because they're full-frame cameras, the glass is still big, so you don't get the hyper-compact size of a micro-4/3 body+lens, but it's still waaay smaller than, say, a 5D + a lens.
      • lb1lf 7y ago
        Full-frame glass can get quite small, too. A 35mm f/2 for the Leica M system weighs in at 250g/0.55lbs. I believe the equivalent APS-C Fuji 23mm f/2 is around 200g/0.45lbs. Of course, with the Summicron you give up such new-fangled innovations as, say, autofocus.
        • ubermonkey 7y ago
          Yeah, that's a hard stop for some folks -- me included. I'm sure the AF material is a big contributor. The glass for my Sony A7ii is significantly larger than (most) lenses I had for my Olympus m4/3 body. The exception is the main prime on both systems -- I have the Sony 50mm/1.8, which is about the same size as the Panasonic/Leica 25mm/1.4 that filled the same role on my Olympus.
    • paggle 7y ago
      Mirrorless is only a weight advantage in the APS-C size. At full frame there is almost no advantage.
      • Green_man 7y ago
        Most of Sony's fe zooms are around the same weight (with some small benefits at wider angles) as an equivalent canikon lens, but it's the wide angle primes that you'll get a big size and weight benefit over full frame glass. The comparisons are complex, and lining up equivalent lenses only works sometimes, because many DSLR wide angle lenses are just zooms, since the primes are large anyways. Mirrorless lens designers have also doubled down on wide primes (like laowa's 15mm f2, or voigtlanders FE ultrawide primes) some of which don't exist for DSLR because they wouldn't be a good value/weight. But the mirrorbox in a DSLR means that the lens can't get super close to the sensor. So a 24mm DSLR lens will actually be a 40mm or so, with reducers put over the front. This means you get a larger lens overall, with more elements. So if you are going to go 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, then you won't see much size benefit. But if you shoot wider/standard primes, there are a lot of compact options for full frame mirrorless.
  • copperx 7y ago
    The problem that I have with mirrorless is the inherent delay between what you see on the screen and the photo taken. I don't know if they have improved from the time I tried them. The advantage of a mirror is that capturing the right instant is much easier when you're photographing subjects that aren't posing, such as children. You want to get that facial expression just right! Not a few hundreths of a second later.
    • paggle 7y ago
      That delay is much lower now than it was a few years ago. It’s now around 10-20ms for the best performing models.
    • rimliu 7y ago
      Olympus has a feature they call Pro Capture. Camera takes a couple dozens of shots before you press the shutter, so you won't miss anything.
  • ghaff 7y ago
    I still have a Canon 5D Miii and a lot of lenses for it. (I shot with EOS cameras pre-digital as well.) I do still use the 5D for certain types of shooting--mostly sports and anything that benefits from very wide or very long lenses. However, assuming I'm taking photos with anything besides my smartphone (which I probably use a greater and greater percentage of the time), it's going to be my Fujifilm mirrorless camera. I think if I were starting over, I'd just go with mirrorless and just forgo the specialized cases that the DSLR and its lenses are better for.
• jbellis 7y ago
  I accepted the "phones are so good that you don't need a separate camera" conventional wisdom by default. Then I tried a mirrorless aps-c. I'm shocked at how much better its photos are. Yes, the phone is adequate for Instagram but if you view similar photos on a 4k monitor there is a much bigger difference than I expected, even for photos that aren't challenging for the phone (landscapes with plenty of light). Also, the selfie camera on your phone is probably MUCH lower quality than the main one on the back. Have someone else take your picture instead if you have the option.
  • jerf 7y ago
    Cell phones are just great for having with you everywhere. You're out and about and kids are doing something cute at the playground you want to remember? You don't need a $5,000 camera back at home, you need something with you now. But almost any dedicated camera that isn't down in the complete crap price range will blow a cell phone out of the water, for two major reasons. First, optical zoom, the number one thing I miss with my cell phone. Second, it is at least somewhat more likely that your "12MP camera" really is 12 MP with your real camera, whereas it's fairly likely you "12MP" cell phone is a lie [1]. This is even in the $150/200 range, long before we get to the ability to change lenses or all those other pro features. My ~$200 camera from 10+ years ago still takes better pictures than my cell phone, because even though my cell phone nominally beats it on megapixels, my camera actually uses all of its pixels to obtain real information from the scene, instead of being a bullet-point feature on a device that isn't even primarily a camera. So, to anyone reading this, if this sounds interesting, you don't even have to go to the big, expensive stuff; my kid literally bought a camera at a garage sale for $5 that also takes better pictures than my cell because it had like 8x optical zoom. It cost me more to find a functional battery than the camera itself did. It's not hard or expensive. [1]: Test: Take a picture in broad daylight, the best possible lighting conditions. Move the picture to your computer. Zoom in until you can see all the pixels clearly. Can you see sharp edges, or do you see a whole bunch of multi-pixel blobs of the sameish color, even around sharp edges? If the latter, your "pixel count" is a lie; it doesn't actually have that much resolving power.
    • snazz 7y ago
• theandrewbailey 7y ago
  > It's like photography on easy mode. Which it should be considering the sticker price. I got a $500 Nikon DSLR about 4 years ago and came to the same conclusion. I usually set it to auto, and I'm astounded by the photo quality that comes out. Occasionally, I'll adjust exposure or focus manually, but for outdoors, auto "just works". Sometimes I think I should have bought a mirrorless instead, but so long as my Nikon works and I'm satisfied with its quality, I'll keep using it.
  • mosselman 7y ago
    I have an oldy Nikon D5000, and I really like it. The biggest bump in terms of photo quality was when I changed from auto-mode to manual mode and learned more about how the camera works and how to shoot what. It is so easy once you get a hang of it and your photos will get a lot better.
• petard 7y ago
  No doubt, there is a huge difference between a real cameras and smartphones in terms photo quality. I still sold my digital fullframe recently, even though I tried to keep the setup physically as small as possible it always felt like extra luggage. I'm now using an old but very good compact film camera for those special moments, which is easy to use, super compact and makes great photos.
  • rimliu 7y ago
    IQ aside ergonomics is also important. Real camera feels so much better in hand and it's so much easier to control it.
• elbac 7y ago
  Out of curiosity what specifically did you buy?
  • keehun 7y ago
    I'm interested, too!
  • whitehouse3 7y ago
    It's the Sony A7III body with the new 24mm 1.4 GM lens. I upgraded its firmware to get the auto-focus features that debuted on the A9. The lens is wide like a smartphone so the subject always fits in the frame. And it has enough resolution to crop later. But it's not so wide that it warps the image. Straight lines look straight. I take 15-20 pics/day and charge it once a month. It's light and small so I can shoot one-handed (very useful with pets and children). One day I'll buy a telephoto lens with better reach. But the 24m is such a great "around-the-home" package. It will be my default for the foreseeable future.
    • manaskarekar 7y ago
      For anyone with a Canon lens collection, the Sigma MC-11 adapter works great with (many)Canon* and Sigma lenses on the A7III. *EF lenses, can't comment on Canon EF-S personally.
      • whitehouse3 7y ago
        Try before you buy, if you can. The A7III's auto focus is slower on adapted lenses than on the EF lenses. It's still impressive, but the Alpha + EF combination is compelling.
    • felipc 7y ago
      how does the bokeh look for a cropped portrait? can you get a reasonably shallow depth of field with such a wide lens?
      • whitehouse3 7y ago
• takeout 7y ago
  It’s not exceedingly surprising that a 3500 camera performs better than a phone. Camera sales are falling because phones are getting better, but they aren’t at the level of high end prosumer gear. $3500 is a massive amount of money to spend on any personal electronic device!
• agumonkey 7y ago
  are we seeing a cycle ? from specific device, too all in one, back to specifics ?
  • sp332 7y ago
    According to the article - no. Most people are fine with their phone cameras according to these sales numbers.
• shosko 7y ago
  OM is saying our relationship with photographs has changed, but it has actually just grown to include the phone. Taking photos with dedicated equipment is still important to many people. I suspect all those sales previously were not going to people serious about photos.
• dangerboysteve 7y ago
  I purchased a Canon 5D MarkII many years back and still own it. The main issue is the size of the body and whatever lens is on it and having to worry about it when you take it somewhere. That is where phone cameras shine. But every time I break out I'm reminded how bloody amazing the pictures are.
• dexterbt1 7y ago
  I had my Nikon D40 paired with 35mm since 2008 and its shutter failed late last year. It served me well at ~60k shutter count for more than 10years, taking beautiful photos of travel, my kids growing up and many important events; even at a measly 6mp at max 1600 iso, it performed superb. For almost a year without my DSLR, most of my photos were shot using my LG G6 phone. It was okay and I insisted feeling it was good enough. It was last Christmas when I was able to borrow a Canon 6Dmk1 paired with a good lens. Boy, I was in for a treat again; the sensor, fast focus, bokeh and low light performance all reminded me how far I've forgotten the joy of getting better pictures using a better camera. Got myself a 77d+24mm soon after to satisfy the cravings.
  • GaryNumanVevo 7y ago
    A pro tip for the LG G6, download the Google Camera from the stock pixel phone, it adds all the nice HDR+, and other features. It's made my G6 a completely new photo taking device.
    • dexterbt1 7y ago
      Yes as I also have several GCam versions on my phone and I'm also a fan of HDR+ and the portrait mode. But we have to admit it has its limits compared against a far bigger sensor with better glass.
• gingabriska 7y ago
  In India galaxy S10 is cheaper than US. And cameras are expensive as most of them are imported.