Godfrey
Well-known member
Rick,Okay, I've never used a mirrorless camera, nor even a Leica rangefinder camera. My experience has always been with SLRs and DSLRs, namely Bronica GS-1, Rollei 6008, and various Nikons.
This may seem like a very novice question, but I'll pose it anyway. Is there a steep learning curve with a mirrorless camera? On a wedding, will I be wishing for something that my DSLR does that a mirrorless does not?
For those of you with your Sony A7s and Fuji XT-1s, please share your knowledge and experiences with me, especially in a fast-paced environment like a wedding or similar event.
Maybe stupid questions, but I am wanting to like the idea of the X1D, I just don't know what I don't know. I had been saving my pennies for a used Leica S2, but this may be a better option.
I thank you in advance for sharing with me your thoughts and opinions.
Rick
There's basically no learning curve at all. You use a mirrorless camera just like an SLR. It has more capabilities in terms of what the viewfinder can do, and has a slightly different set of strengths and weaknesses, that's all.
For something like a wedding or newsworthy event, I find there's virtually no difference at all between using a DSLR and using any mirrorless camera. Whether the mirrorless camera is a Sony A7, a Fuji X, an Olympus E-M1, a Leica SL, or whatever, and the DSLR is (take your pick) Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc ... the differences are between what specific camera capabilities are, not because of the viewfinder design. With a mirrorless camera, you see the image as it will be captured, live, and can make exposure and focusing adjustments that place your exposures with more precision and accuracy. You can also set up the viewfinder to give you more or less information, different kinds of focusing aids, etc. You can view at taking aperture without the viewfinder going dark, for example, and really get a good look at the actual DoF you'll get. You can set the exposure system to indicate where highlights will be blown out and where shadow values will be lost in some cameras (Olympus is particularly good at this). You can magnify the view to obtain exacting critical focus even with an extreme wide angle stopped down.
Of course, there are some things that DSLRs have an advantage for. A mirrorless camera shows you an electronic view of what the sensor has just seen (note past tense) where a DSLR shows you an optical view of what the sensor will see (note future tense). This means that you have to adjust your understanding of what's in the viewfinder: with a DSLR, you're always projecting a little into the future whereas with a mirrorless camera, you're always seeing a bit behind the moment. The difference is small for single-frame still photos but there—you have to learn how to anticipate The Moment a little differently.
That difference gets magnified in sequence capture and this is where the DSLR has its biggest advantage: for sequence captures of fast moving subjects, you are always seeing a little flip frame animation of what you're going to capture a tiny bit ahead of the capture. With a mirrorless camera, many of the viewfinders cannot keep up with the capture rate at maximum speed so you only get to see an occasional frame of what was in the viewfinder when the capture occurred. For those shooting fast moving, motion critical work, a DSLR remains the best tool.
There are also differences in things like autofocus system responsiveness and control, and all the plethora of AF system modes. This is a highly volatile area of development, debate, and it's also highly dependent upon exactly what sort of subject matter you shoot, what specific camera and lens you use. I use AF very little of the time so I'll just pass over it, what I have to say there is trivial and likely not credible to those who depend on AF and things like follow-focus capability, etc.
For the kind of subject matter that I shoot (people, parties, still life, landscape, motor racing occasionally, urban street, macro, night scenes), I've found a mirrorless camera like the Leica SL or Olympus E-M1 blows away any of the DSLRs I've used by a healthy bit. The viewfinder flexibility and the precision with which I can set focus and exposure is the key. For what I use a DSLR for, these mirrorless cameras simply do a better job.
I'd love an X1D, but I already have the Leica SL and a complement of lenses that covers all my needs. And the quality is already more than just satisfying so ... I just can't rationalize spending the money given the initial X1D lens offerings*at this moment. When the ultra-wide lens I'd like comes about—then I'm going to be in trouble. Because ultra-wide with medium format DoF dynamics, resolution, and Hasselblad SWC class lens quality will present a nearly irresistible draw.
G
PS: The term "mirrorless" always bugs me. Identifying a class of things by saying what they lack is idiotic. Do we refer to our automobiles as "horseless carriages" anymore? It's just not a good way to identify or describe things. The right term is elusive, but "lens interchangeable, view electronic" or LIVE camera would be a better term. Of course, others once said that in a different order to create the EVIL label ... that was snarkiness at work. But "mirrorless" is common parlance for the present so I'll put up with it.