I agree, mirrorless offers no fundamental advantage for me nor do I think it ever will. I'll inevitably feel the need to upgrade my body at some point (because clearly the D850 isn't all the camera I ever need ) at which time I believe that mirrorless will likely have surpassed DSLR.
We all fall into the trap of new tech etc though and I find it fascinating how many people 'justify' mirrorless by saying how good EVF's are in that you see what you get before you shoot, but for me it's just bells and whistles that don't actually add anything. I have a DSLR and mirrorless (EM1) and when I think about it my keeper rate due to correct exposure of my EM1 is no better than that of my D850. So does the WYSIWYG viewfinder help me in any way? Not really. I can see the benefit of focus magnification and peaking if you're that kind of shooter, but they don't help me. Silent shutter? Never been in an environment where I needed it. I've never maxed out by shutter speed of my Nikon so having 1/32000 shutter speeds etc isn't necessary (for me). Eye focus AF? I can see it makes things easier, but lets be honest it's not like you can't take a portrait without it
So when you break it down, all these so called advantages aren't really necessary and I wonder how much of it is the brilliance of marketing making us think we 'need' these things? The one big advantage of mirrorless for me is the AF in live view, but the only time I really use live view is on travels (sight seeing seems to lend itself to live view for me) and for landscapes, and of course for landscapes AF speed matters not
I think the big advantage of mirrorless initially was the size/weight advantage but as the A7 has proven, there is very little advantage when you compare like for like.
I see there's an official countdown campaign now, which we are assuming is for a FF mirrorless camera (imagine the PR nightmare if it reaches 0 and they launch a new printer!).
Really hope Nikon knock it out of the park with this. Aside from the change in mount, which everyone has an opinion on, and getting live view right there's no reason to think they won't as they already have some of the best DLSR's in the world.
One of the most interesting questions to be answered will be how they handle the ergonomics, and if they are an improvement over what Sony have offered. Although, I wonder if it's a limitation due to the smaller overall body size. With lenses staying basically the same size as DSLR counterparts, it wouldn't be difficult to make the case the the ergonomics are more important than ever with the shift in balance. Sadly, they don't feature on a spec sheet, so I doubt it's ever really been high up the priority list.
From what I've read Nikon are concentrating on ergonomics, and wanting to enhance the overall user experience, whatever that means. I hear a lot about how people like to use Fuji as it feels so organic, yet Nikon and Canon feel clinical. To me they're all just cameras, you use them all the same. Sure some feel more comfortable (which is important) but why some feel more "organic" I have no idea
Whilst Nikon do make arguably the best DSLRs at the moment (from all the usual brands), they've not shown anything that makes me confident that they will have class leading on sensor PDAF. Time will obviously tell. I just hope they get it right and don't release something half baked just to get into the market. Canon got away with it with the M system, but I'm not sure Nikon can.
That's one of the 'advantages' of mirrorless that I find a disadvantage. When I'm out with my 150-600 I don't want a small, light body on the end as it feels unbalanced. I know it's a smaller system than the FF but my Olly with the kit 40-150 is lot less stable than my D750 with twice the reach.
Mirrorless bodies don't have to be smaller, but that seems to be the trend. I assume that you mean the 40-150mm f2.8 as the other one's lighter than a light thing? I'd probably still rather carry the EM1 and 40-150mm f2.8 than the D750 and 150-600mm though
No, I meant the kit lens rather than pro. The weight of the pro would make it feel more unbalanced for me, as the EM10 is so light.
I'd rather carry a M4/3 setup, but I'd rather use the DSLR setup. It's the extra weight that stabilises the whole system and transfers less of my own shaky hands.
Ahh so you meant less stabilised rather than unbalanced? I find the 150-600mm tricky to stabilise, especially with slow panning. I’ve never tried with something like the EM1 and 40-150mm R so don’t know if this is too far the other way, ie too light. With my arms getting worse I’ve just bought the new Nikon 70-300mm AF-P to save weight over using my 70-200mm f2.8 or 150-600mm. The price has just been slashed plus there’s £90 cash back at he mo so it’s actually pretty good value. I just hope it’s not too light as it’s about 300g lighter than the D850 without battery grip
Yeah, stabilised is probably more apt. Maybe I need to invest in the pro 40-150 (by need I obviously mean .hey I've not bought anything recently!), but I tend to mainly use the Olly for gigs with the Panasonic 25mm.
Never panned much with the 150-600, outside of birds in flight, but the missus probably gets a better hit rate than me with the Tamron 70-300 for the same, so it's probably a good investment for the Nikon equivalent.
Author: wysinawyg
2-12-2019 06:53:59