The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Mirrorless and DSLR again, spot on

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Oh no... not again :cussing:

I'm not a big fan of Thom Hogan for many different reasons, the most important being that he's often too technical, too much of an engineer. This time however, I think he's written a well balanced article about the advantages and disadvantages that both system types offer. I have used, and still use, cameras from most of the manufacturers that he mentions, and his experiences are more or less exactly the same as mine. In addition, he knows his technical stuff, which I don't.

Seven Reasons Why I’m Still a Nikon DSLR User | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
It's a bit of a snore. My tongue-in-cheek rejoinder:

1. Viewfinder

I prefer the improved ability to critical focus in dim light and with ultra-wide lenses given by the Olympus E-M1, or Leica SL EVF over ANY optical SLR focusing screen, never mind the additional focusing aid provided by focus peaking, or live histogram view and exposure simulation for judging proper exposure.

2. Lenses

I have excellent Leica lenses in focal lengths from 15mm to 500mm focal length, all of which perform beautifully on my Leica SL. Similarly, I have excellent Olympus and Panasonic/Leica lenses in focal lengths from 22 to 560mm (equivalent) for the Olympus E-M1. My six Nikon lenses are no better.

3. Battery Life

I have never run out of battery life during a shooting session from a single battery in any of the mirrorless cameras I've been shooting with since 2009.

4. Focus Speed and Accuracy

My preference is manual focus, and I usually beat any AF system's accuracy when shooting my typical subject matter.

5. Controls & Ergonomics

My Nikon D750 feels like a Magic Wurlitzer of buttons, dials, sliders, and menu options compared to my SL. (So does the E-M1, for that matter. :)

6. Buffer Performance

I shoot in single shot mode 99.9% of the time. Both my cameras far exceed any need for buffer performance I might have.

7. Neutrality

The DNG files out of the SL at the cameras defaults are as neutral as the NEF files out of the Nikon. In fact, they're more malleable when editing.​

G
 

Tim

Active member
When the EVF view is indistinguishable from an OVF, we'll need a new list of things to complain about.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
When the EVF view is indistinguishable from an OVF, we'll need a new list of things to complain about.
Thom Hogan isn't complaining, and neither am I. He's just stating that for his photography, a DSLR still works better. He also lists a number of advantages that mirrorless cameras offer.

When it comes to the EVF vs. OVF debate, the EVF is still not nearly there for some kinds of photography. I do see that some sports photographers are using the X-T2 successfully at motorsports events (see the links I posted on the X-T2 thread). I will try the Fuji to see how much that has improved, and for sure it looks like an impressive piece of kit. My E-M1 isn't even close to what an OVF offers for action photography.
 

Tim

Active member
Thom Hogan isn't complaining, and neither am I. He's just stating that for his photography, a DSLR still works better. He also lists a number of advantages that mirrorless cameras offer.

When it comes to the EVF vs. OVF debate, the EVF is still not nearly there for some kinds of photography. I do see that some sports photographers are using the X-T2 successfully at motorsports events (see the links I posted on the X-T2 thread). I will try the Fuji to see how much that has improved, and for sure it looks like an impressive piece of kit. My E-M1 isn't even close to what an OVF offers for action photography.
Have no fear, I am not anti-DSLR, nor anti EVF.

I would like to see a DSLR with a more svelt pentaprism though. A DSLR like OM4 or a DSLR Pentax ME Super.
A true DSLR the size of an EM5 !

Its always about size ! LOL
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Have no fear, I am not anti-DSLR, nor anti EVF.

I would like to see a DSLR with a more svelt pentaprism though. A DSLR like OM4 or a DSLR Pentax ME Super.
A true DSLR the size of an EM5 !

Its always about size ! LOL
Exactly! Nikon has shown how small a relatively advanced DSLR can be made with the 420g (including battery) D5500. With a proper pentaprism viewfinder and a more traditional user interface and body shape, it would gain a few grams, but would still be as light and as small as the 469g E-M5 II.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Thanks for posting Thom's thoughts.

I think the debate will continue on for some time yet.

Personally, my repertoire of camera types co-exist nicely … each with their strengths and weaknesses depending on application.

I currently use a Leica Rangefinder (Mirrorless/OVF, a Sony A7R/A7R-II Mirrorless/EVF , and a Leica S(006) Mirror/OVF. Three distinctly different types of cameras; three different viewfinders/operational experiences.

I can eliminate the M and S cameras because they are familiar experiences practiced over a long period of intense use. The M for over 40+ years, and the S being an extension of SLR/DSLR (35mm and MF) for almost as long (Primarily Canon, Contax, Mamiya, Hasselblad, and Nikon).

I also would suggest that new tech advantages are being over exaggerated by converts, and over-villified by non-users.

In many cases, "new tech" solves problems many of us weren't aware we had:rolleyes:

I don't recall having problems focusing a rangefinder or DSLR in low light, nor particularly any issue achieving proper exposures … heck, with film we didn't even have a preview at all.

Mirror-less with EVF simply goes about it differently … and offers alternative ways of seeing in certain light that has pluses and minuses of its own. Low light EVF using necessary higher ISOs produces video gain that makes mag views difficult to use. Plus the daylight level of VF brightness in low light screws with one's night vision. On the other hand, exposing in low light seems easier with WYSIWYG EVF viewing. So, on occasion it can be an experiential trade off.

In any case, with Mirror-less/EVF or DSLRs wonder-cams, we seem to be headed toward being increasingly dependent on a symbiotic relationship with our tools. Whether that is good or bad depends on one's personal perspective.

It some ways it is a bit like our inability to trust doing simple math in our head, due to the ubiquitous calculator. Or people viewing everything on a cell phone screen, even when in a wonder-fill location.

I like both, use both, and don't think for a minute that one is better than the other … although one seems destined to be the future whether we like it or not.

- Marc
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
Have no fear, I am not anti-DSLR, nor anti EVF.

I would like to see a DSLR with a more svelt pentaprism though. A DSLR like OM4 or a DSLR Pentax ME Super.
A true DSLR the size of an EM5 !

Its always about size ! LOL
I resemble that remark. :toocool: Oh, wait ...! :ROTFL:

My baseline camera had been for many years a Nikon SLR. Love Leica RFs, but always found them a bit too limited in versatility to be the baseline; they were always the complement. When I described my dream camera in 2001, it was in essence what is now the Nikon D750. But having gotten there, I just don't find it particularly appealing for my uses. These TTL electronic viewfinder cameras came up along the way and, overall, do what I want more proficiently and conveniently.

Now, I probably don't have Thom Hogan's needs or investment in Nikon lenses. There are things that an SLR is ideal for, and there are a lot more bits and lenses available for Nikons and Canons than for anything else. Any rational photographer knows that, for the most part, once past a certain level of competence, the camera itself is the least part of what it takes to make awesome photos. We obsess over the minutiae of camera operation because we enjoy doing that and we like things to work in a way that suits our personal predilections, but if such things are actually getting in the way of making compelling photos on average, we have larger issues.

So my list above is tongue-in-cheek. If the two cameras I mention weren't in my cabinet, along with their lenses, I'd be singing the D750's praises too. But I do like using the darn things more than I like the D750, and they suit my particular working needs and desires well.

I'm glad the option is there. :clap:

G
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
One thing that confuses me is how some of the suppliers of mirrorless cameras try to reinvent the camera interface, particularly the menu system. Although there have been differences between brands, the physical UI of cameras has been relatively consistent since the introduction of AF cameras a few decades ago, and the menu systems have all been pretty similar too. Nikon user changing to Canon used to complain a bit and vice versa, but that was peanuts compared to what we are seeing now, with Sony and Olympus making the wheel square, or is it triangular?

Example:
When I adjust ISO or f-stop or pretty much any other parameter on the E-M1, I get get a long list of f-stops (or any of the other parameter) horizontally across my viewfinder obstructing my view and introducing an alien moving element into my composition. It's like having a nanny telling me to turn the steering wheel to the right when making a right turn. Any photographer who has used a camera more than twice knows that the f-stop will change when he turns the command wheel, he knows that it will go up when he turns it in one direction and down when he turns it in the other direction. The changing of the f-stop was most probably the reason why he turned wheel to start with, and he'll see that the value of the figures somewhere along the edge of the viewfinder will change, unless he's blind, which isn't very probable all things considered.

Maybe it's possible to turn "functionality" like that off in some menu, but why should I have to do that? I bought the top model, and it behaves like an iPhone. Apart from the fact of course that the menu system seems to be made by the same people who made the "Adventure" computer game that we used to run on IBM mainframe computers during the seventies. "YOU ARE IN A LITTLE MAZE OF TWISTING PASSAGES, ALL DIFFERENT". Yep, I can relate to that, and it was fun solving the riddles while waiting for stacks of thousands of punched cards being re-read for the umpteenth times, but I don't want to spend the whole evening figuring out how to change basic camera settings.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Jorgen,

I don't know what you've got set up in your E-M1, but I can't figure out how to get mine to do that. I recently upgraded it to fw4.1 and haven't had time to reinstall my preferred settings yet, so the camera is at the factory defaults. What mode are you using? are you using the touchscreen control interface or the Super Control Panel? LCD or EVF? I'm truly mystified. My E-M1, even at the factory defaults, is bone simple to use and doesen't put any dancing/flying pigs and traveling F/stop whirligigs into my field of view at any time. I turn the control dial, and the number at the bottom of the screen increments. Thats it. I did a shoot the other day, on short notice, didn't have time to do my customizations, and it just worked without any complications... ???

The E-M1 menu system is very similar, almost identical in many aspects, to the E-5 SLR's menu system, likewise very similar to the E-3 and E-30*SLRs' menu systems. All of which were a significant elaboration on the E-1 menu system (a much much simpler camera). It's not "reinvented afresh for the mirrorless camera", it's a direct derivative of what came before it in the Olympus professional camera line.

You seem to have never-ending issues with the E-M1 and its control organization. Perhaps you'd be better off switching to the Panasonic GH3/GH4 which are more simply organized, have fewer features, and seems more your cup of tea?

G
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
One thing that confuses me is how some of the suppliers of mirrorless cameras try to reinvent the camera interface, particularly the menu system. Although there have been differences between brands, the physical UI of cameras has been relatively consistent since the introduction of AF cameras a few decades ago, and the menu systems have all been pretty similar too. Nikon user changing to Canon used to complain a bit and vice versa, but that was peanuts compared to what we are seeing now, with Sony and Olympus making the wheel square, or is it triangular?

Example:
When I adjust ISO or f-stop or pretty much any other parameter on the E-M1, I get get a long list of f-stops (or any of the other parameter) horizontally across my viewfinder obstructing my view and introducing an alien moving element into my composition. It's like having a nanny telling me to turn the steering wheel to the right when making a right turn. Any photographer who has used a camera more than twice knows that the f-stop will change when he turns the command wheel, he knows that it will go up when he turns it in one direction and down when he turns it in the other direction. The changing of the f-stop was most probably the reason why he turned wheel to start with, and he'll see that the value of the figures somewhere along the edge of the viewfinder will change, unless he's blind, which isn't very probable all things considered.

Maybe it's possible to turn "functionality" like that off in some menu, but why should I have to do that? I bought the top model, and it behaves like an iPhone. Apart from the fact of course that the menu system seems to be made by the same people who made the "Adventure" computer game that we used to run on IBM mainframe computers during the seventies. "YOU ARE IN A LITTLE MAZE OF TWISTING PASSAGES, ALL DIFFERENT". Yep, I can relate to that, and it was fun solving the riddles while waiting for stacks of thousands of punched cards being re-read for the umpteenth times, but I don't want to spend the whole evening figuring out how to change basic camera settings.
Growing up in the "video game age" (I'm in my mid-30's) I really don't see the parallel between mirrorless cameras and video games. I suppose it's a generational thing and Sony (in particular) doesn't have the long camera history like a Leica, Hasselblad, or Canon. Panasonic menus are a lot like digital Leica ones... Or at least they were when I still owned Leica's.

This does mean that mirrorless can't go to a more simple design (I think they actually tried with the original NEX cameras) but I believe they chose to just unify to what the DSLR/SLT cameras used for familial similarity.

I think there are three major points to make - many are used to "company x's" way to do things. Many are used to cameras in the film days (of in many cases company x's ecosystem) that were ONLY cameras. There are a large contingent of photographer that want a camera that ONLY focuses on still photography.

Many of of the more "complicated" features are video centric features which usually results in 60-75% of the menu options in general.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Growing up in the "video game age" (I'm in my mid-30's) I really don't see the parallel between mirrorless cameras and video games. I suppose it's a generational thing and Sony (in particular) doesn't have the long camera history like a Leica, Hasselblad, or Canon. Panasonic menus are a lot like digital Leica ones... Or at least they were when I still owned Leica's.

This does mean that mirrorless can't go to a more simple design (I think they actually tried with the original NEX cameras) but I believe they chose to just unify to what the DSLR/SLT cameras used for familial similarity.

I think there are three major points to make - many are used to "company x's" way to do things. Many are used to cameras in the film days (of in many cases company x's ecosystem) that were ONLY cameras. There are a large contingent of photographer that want a camera that ONLY focuses on still photography.

Many of of the more "complicated" features are video centric features which usually results in 60-75% of the menu options in general.
In a way, what you write makes sense, but then Panasonic, arguably the most video centric brand of all, offers a classic SLR user interface, somewhere between Canon and Nikon, and it works excellently for photography as well as for video. And mind you, Panasonic hadn't made a single exchangeable lens stills camera before the L1, some 10 years ago.

Edit:
The reference to Adventure was a joke. Computer games at that time had no graphics, which was just as well. The standard IBM monitors couldn't show anything other than green letters and numbers, so you had to use your imagination to figure out what was happening, just like with the Olympus menu system ;)

The sequence of the word in the quoted sentence represented an indication where to find things.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jorgen,

I don't know what you've got set up in your E-M1, but I can't figure out how to get mine to do that. I recently upgraded it to fw4.1 and haven't had time to reinstall my preferred settings yet, so the camera is at the factory defaults. What mode are you using? are you using the touchscreen control interface or the Super Control Panel? LCD or EVF? I'm truly mystified. My E-M1, even at the factory defaults, is bone simple to use and doesen't put any dancing/flying pigs and traveling F/stop whirligigs into my field of view at any time. I turn the control dial, and the number at the bottom of the screen increments. Thats it. I did a shoot the other day, on short notice, didn't have time to do my customizations, and it just worked without any complications... ???

The E-M1 menu system is very similar, almost identical in many aspects, to the E-5 SLR's menu system, likewise very similar to the E-3 and E-30*SLRs' menu systems. All of which were a significant elaboration on the E-1 menu system (a much much simpler camera). It's not "reinvented afresh for the mirrorless camera", it's a direct derivative of what came before it in the Olympus professional camera line.

You seem to have never-ending issues with the E-M1 and its control organization. Perhaps you'd be better off switching to the Panasonic GH3/GH4 which are more simply organized, have fewer features, and seems more your cup of tea?

G
I upgraded to 4.1 too, and it still looks the same, I have no idea why anybody would want it to begin with. I did use the E-1 as my main camera for a few years until I killed it in a motorcycle accident, and from what I remember, it had a very simple, down-to-earth menu system.

Ideally, I should have the GH4 rather than the E-M1. However, the Panasonic focuses very slowly with the PanaLeica 14-50mm and it lacks IBIS which is useful, particularly with the Zuiko 40-150mm. It will be interesting to see what the GH5 has to offer, and the E-M1 II. I have a feeling that the new E-M1 will be in a different class compared to the old one, bigger and with a bigger battery. We'll see.
 

Tim

Active member
What some maker could experiment with is open up their camera software interface to the community.
Provide a basic bootable camera with bare minimum and a SDK of sorts that an online community can write 1,2 or 100 differing interfaces for.
If they include a way of recovery like a iPhone or Android phone has then they should be ok.

The only downside is we may spend more time tinkering with the OS than taking images.
(before anyone says android i think it has too many overheads)
 
M

mjr

Guest
I think that as with all things that come down to personal preference, there will be as many for as against any new technology, it's all good! Like others, I have never needed my viewfinder to show me what an image will look like at the exposure settings I have chosen but some love that, I can pre-visualise it quite easily without seeing it, I also don't have a need for magnified view for focussing or focus peaking, that may change as I get older though! Without those things, the evf for me has no benefit, my eye can deal with far greater dynamic range looking at a view through the lens than the evf can provide, if that changes and an evf shows as much as an ovf then there will be less reason for an ovf but at the moment that is not the case. These are my own preferences and there are plenty of cameras that work for me, for those who value what an evf provides for them then there are also now loads of options for them too, it's a win win situation, a camera only has to work for the person standing behind it! Ultimately it's your creativity that produces the final image, as long as the camera doesn't get in the way of that then it's doing its job.

Mat
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pegelli

Well-known member
Nicely written but nothing new in my mind.

Thinking back on some earlier discussions here and on the Luminous Landscape all his points were already covered in spades a long time ago.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I think that as will all things that come down to personal preference, there will be as many for as against any new technology, it's all good! Like others, I have never needed my viewfinder to show me what an image will look like at the exposure settings I have chosen but some love that, I can pre-visualise it quite easily without seeing it, I also don't have a need for magnified view for focussing or focus peaking, that may change as I get older though! Without those things, the evf for me has no benefit, my eye can deal with far greater dynamic range looking at a view through the lens than the evf can provide, if that changes and an evf shows as much as an ovf then there will be less reason for an ovf but at the moment that is not the case. These are my own preferences and there are plenty of cameras that work for me, for those who value what an evf provides for them then there are also now loads of options for them too, it's a win win situation, a camera only has to work for the person standing behind it! Ultimately it's your creativity that produces the final image, as long as the camera doesn't get in the way of that then it's doing its job.

Mat
To elaborate on that … I think it's not only personal preference that speaks to new technology, but can depend on applications even with-in one person's experiences.

It was common practice for commercial photographers to shoot Polaroid Previews with LG Format & MF film cameras, and many of us wished for that convenience with 35mm … then digital technology provided tethered shooting with big formats and Live-View for 35mm.

I agree that with experience comes the ability to pre-visualize what you get with the settings you have selected, however actually seeing what you will get is of value when the lighting is particularly challenging, or you are interested in exploring some creative exposure. What is of benefit is that it promotes experimentation.

Another interesting application comes with manually focusing challenging lenses … using focus magnification with a Leica M 50/0.95 on a Sony A7R-II was a revelation for me. The hit ratio went to almost 100%.

I still prefer OVF, but do have occasion to work with a EVF camera and have come to see them as more alike than opposites.

- Marc
 
M

mjr

Guest
Sure, I don't think we are talking about different things, I talk only about the way I want to do things and the kit I own. My preferences are built from my experiences which help me decide how I want to work, it's not the only way and may not even be the most efficient way but it's the way I like it!

As I don't do anything outside shooting commercially, I spend a huge amount of time just shooting anyway, I have good friends here who will sit for me for hours whilst I try different things, practice stuff and explore the reaches of my kit and imagination, I experiment a lot! Just on Saturday I had a friend bring her daughter around and I just photographed her with around 20 different lighting setups inside and outside, I spent an hour just focussing manually and more than that focussing with af, there's a very good chance I could just use evf, zoom in and nail focus every time, use ttl and take single shot, nothing wrong with that but it's not the way I want to do it so I don't! I remember when I first bought the Profoto TTL controller for the Nikon, I'd set up the lights and take a shot and the exposure was right, easy, efficient and so bloody boring! Went back to manual and just preferred the experimentation, it almost always opened up new things. I understand completely that you appreciate evf etc. as a means of experimenting in different conditions, I personally haven't found my creativity restricted by not having it, there's no right or wrong, just different. My opinion would probably change if I owned lenses like the Leica you mention and found it tricky to focus but as I don't, it's not something that factors.

Ultimately, whenever I see an image that really stands out to me, I have absolutely no thought for what was used to capture it, I just don't care, the "why" I find fascinating but not the "how", I never get anyone asking me what camera I use, I like that!

Technology is moving on at such a pace, it's a great time to be a photographer, no matter how you like to work, there is brilliant kit out there to help you produce the results you want, I'm not anti any technology, just not interested in buying it unless it does something for me that what I have doesn't.

Mat

Actually, just to add, the biggest development in my own images has not been from camera equipment but from software, C1 has made a huge difference over LR for me, plus investing more time in learning about post processing has done far more for me than new equipment has, that and taking the time to travel to places I don't often see. I think I would actually prefer spending the money I would use for a new camera on visiting some new places but I appreciate that's a very personal thing.
 
Top