# Considering a switch from Full frame DSLR to mirrorless, have a few questions



## CaptainNapalm

Hi guys, this is my first time posting in this neck of the woods (mirorrless section) but I'm considering switching from a full frame DSLR system to mirrorless and looking for some input. I've been shooting as a hobby now for a good few years and know for sure that photography will be a big part of my life moving forward.  I started off shooting with the Nikon D5100, then moved onto the D7000 and for the past year or so have been enjoying the D600 full frame camera.  I enjoy shooting landscapes, street photography, functions, people and some wildlife such as birds and other animals.  

For the past few months though I've noticed that my camera comes with me less than I'd like to.  For example, today I went to a family function and decided not to bring my camera bag with all the gear.  I knew that it was going to be a tight space with lots of people and just didn't want my bag with the camera, flash and lenses tugging along.  Well my sister's boyfriend was there who recently picked up a mirrorless fuji camera and after playing with it for a good hour I really appreciated it's size and function.  I came to the realization that if I had a system his size I would literally take it with me everywhere.  The DSLR is great for dedicated photo walks but it really is starting to become a burden for me for everything else and I'm finding that I'm missing photo opportunities just because I don't have it with me when I want it.

So now I'm getting an itch to completely ditch my DSLR system and invest in a nice mirrorless system.  I figure if I sell my mint condition D600 along with 5 lenses, flash and accessories I can get about $2,800 for everything.  This would allow me to get the Sony A7R with a couple of lenses in new condition and maybe some accessories.  I really want to continue shooting with full frame sensor despite stepping down to a compact system and I'm interested in the A7R to it's high resolution and great image quality.  

My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
Thanks!


----------



## The_Traveler

I love it, it is a sense of freedom that I haven't known since forever.
Read this which I wrote some months after the switch.
I've used nothing but M43 since last March.

But there is no such thing as a camera that is perfect for everything.

I'm not certain about the A7r if only because I've heard that the AF isn't fast at all and for street work, for me at least, AF speed is a biggie.
It is also larger and heavier than most.
My best friend shoots with one and the quality is great.


----------



## Ysarex

An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even. You will have to be able to justify and live with the downgrade from the OVF and consider it was worth it for the advantages in size and weight.

I made the switch and I consider it an overall positive compromise. I was in a similar situation where I just wasn't using the big gun 5D and so it had to go. I'm happier now with a much smaller and lighter camera that I am using, but I do miss my OVF.

Joe


----------



## CdTSnap

Id be very interested in this thread, Id love to have an A7R, Its funny, the thing I would struggle with most is the view finder I reckon. I havent looked through the A7R version but looking at the digital image as oposed to the SLR mirror would take me aaagggeess to get used to.


----------



## CaptainNapalm

The_Traveler said:


> I love it, it is a sense of freedom that I haven't known since forever.
> Read this which I wrote some months after the switch.
> I've used nothing but M43 since last March.
> 
> But there is no such thing as a camera that is perfect for everything.
> 
> I'm not certain about the A7r if only because I've heard that the AF isn't fast at all and for street work, for me at least, AF speed is a biggie.
> It is also larger and heavier than most.
> My best friend shoots with one and the quality is great.



Thanks Lew, I'll read through your blog.


----------



## CaptainNapalm

Ysarex said:


> An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even. You will have to be able to justify and live with the downgrade from the OVF and consider it was worth it for the advantages in size and weight.
> 
> I made the switch and I consider it an overall positive compromise. I was in a similar situation where I just wasn't using the big gun 5D and so it had to go. I'm happier now with a much smaller and lighter camera that I am using, but I do miss my OVF.
> 
> Joe



Thanks for your input Joe.  For some reason, I didn't find the electronic viewfinder on the Fuji I used today all that irritating.  Certainly not irritating enough to overweigh the benefit of the small size of the camera.  Its the AF system that I needed to adjust to more.


----------



## CaptainNapalm

CdTSnap said:


> Id be very interested in this thread, Id love to have an A7R, Its funny, the thing I would struggle with most is the view finder I reckon. I havent looked through the A7R version but looking at the digital image as oposed to the SLR mirror would take me aaagggeess to get used to.



Wasn't all that bad for me today.


----------



## CdTSnap

CaptainNapalm said:


> CdTSnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Id be very interested in this thread, Id love to have an A7R, Its funny, the thing I would struggle with most is the view finder I reckon. I havent looked through the A7R version but looking at the digital image as oposed to the SLR mirror would take me aaagggeess to get used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't all that bad for me today.
Click to expand...


Does it look very different to the mirror? Stupid question? Just not sure how "realistic" they can make it 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## The_Traveler

An EVF is different but it depends on how critical the use of fine detail seen through the viewfinder is in someone's specific work.
For me the ability to see the actual exposure when I use the EC certainly far outweighs any loss in resolution.

(not to mention the difference in weight)


----------



## CdTSnap

The_Traveler said:


> An EVF is different but it depends on how critical the use of fine detail seen through the viewfinder is in someone's specific work.
> For me the ability to see the actual exposure when I use the EC certainly far outweighs any loss in resolution.
> 
> (not to mention the difference in weight)



So in the A7r for example you cant see the actual exposure?

Great site also Lew, never looked at it until now.


----------



## The_Traveler

I'm certain that in the A7r you can see the change in exposure with ec.
My hesitation has been the lack of two lightweight lenses that I use the most , 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 and the uncertainty of the speed of AF.
I have those equivalents in the M4/3 and I'm happy as a clam.
It would take a huge improvement in something unknown to me now for me to go back to a heavier system.


----------



## CaptainNapalm

CdTSnap said:


> CaptainNapalm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CdTSnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Id be very interested in this thread, Id love to have an A7R, Its funny, the thing I would struggle with most is the view finder I reckon. I havent looked through the A7R version but looking at the digital image as oposed to the SLR mirror would take me aaagggeess to get used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't all that bad for me today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it look very different to the mirror? Stupid question? Just not sure how "realistic" they can make it
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


It looked pretty good.  To be honest I didn't pay all that much attention to it but was using it and it was sufficient enough not to bother me so maybe for me it's not a deal breaker.  Lew nailed it on the money with his other posts regarding it.


----------



## DarkShadow

I have a Samsung NX300 that has a 20.3 pix sensor the same specs in size as in a Nikon Crop sensor DSLR and its fantastic. 8 FPS and a Shutter speed up 1/6000th is impressive.The downside with mine is no view finder and I cant see the LCD on sunny days. That said, no way I would ditch my DSLR Cameras.


----------



## CaptainNapalm

The_Traveler said:


> I love it, it is a sense of freedom that I haven't known since forever.
> Read this which I wrote some months after the switch.
> I've used nothing but M43 since last March.
> 
> But there is no such thing as a camera that is perfect for everything.
> 
> I'm not certain about the A7r if only because I've heard that the AF isn't fast at all and for street work, for me at least, AF speed is a biggie.
> It is also larger and heavier than most.
> My best friend shoots with one and the quality is great.



Lew, I read you post.  It becomes obvious from your experience that a compact system is a no brainer for street photography but seeing quite a few of your posts on here I conclude that this is mostly the type of photography that you do.  For me, the use of my camera would be more varied, although, I can still shoot good landscapes, functions, vacations, etc. with a compact system.  The only struggle I see myself having is shooting fast moving birds or sports which I don't do all that much.  I think before I jump the gun here and commit to the idea I'm going to borrow the camera I played with today for a week or so if possible and see if it truly fits my liking.  Well written post by the way, I'll go back to read the rest of them when I have some more time.


----------



## dxqcanada

I switched from an OVF to an EVF ... and I like it. Yeah, looking through a 100% viewfinder prism (like I had on my Canon nF-1) is different than an EVF ... but I did not find the transition so bad.
The OVF on my APS-C was dramatically smaller than my nF-1 that it bugged me. The EVF was as large as the Canon.
Having live feedback through the viewfinder on exposure (and white balance) is great ... actually I no longer think about how much exposure to set, just eyeball it and it is very accurate (though I do not do a lot of very low light shooting). The Sony A57 only has a 1.4M dot EVF, while the A7r has a 2.4M so it should look better than what I see.

I would switch over if I was not shooting wildlife ... actually, I may just upgrade my NEX-3 to a 7 just as a carry around/backup camera.


----------



## unpopular

Ysarex said:


> An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.



IDK. Just use a fixed lens with an optical finder and AF. Personally I think optical finders and rangefinders outperform SLR, especially in low light.


----------



## Derrel

Buy a Sony A7r and you'll get a SLIGHTLY smaller body...but the lenses will be just as large as the lenses for a Nikon D600. And at this time there are almost NO lens choices for the A7 series...it's a brand-new mount, and Sony rolled the cameras out with basicvally, no lenses to choose from. trading in a D600 and five lenses for an A7r and no lenses is a bad move.

If you want to go "small", you really need to look at how big the lenses are.Fuji's X-series lenses ar smallish, but heavy. I would definitely look at the m4/3 format if you really want a light, small,portable option. Full-frame is still full-frame.


----------



## nzmacro

CdTSnap said:


> Id be very interested in this thread, Id love to have an A7R, Its funny, the thing I would struggle with most is the view finder I reckon. I havent looked through the A7R version but looking at the digital image as oposed to the SLR mirror would take me aaagggeess to get used to.



That's what I thought as well Chris. No way would I go back to an OVF  I've seen all sorts of things thrown at mirrorless, no good for sports, no good for BIF's, the EVF is laggy, its like looking at a TV screen, gees I've seen everything possible said about mirrorless and EVF's all completely wrong and yet, they offer some things an OVF cannot. There will always be a preference I guess and mine is now EVF. A little different I guess because I can't stand AF either. What you need to do Chris, is get to a shop and try it. 

All the best.

Danny.


----------



## nzmacro

dxqcanada said:


> I switched from an OVF to an EVF ... and I like it. Yeah, looking through a 100% viewfinder prism (like I had on my Canon nF-1) is different than an EVF ... but I did not find the transition so bad.
> The OVF on my APS-C was dramatically smaller than my nF-1 that it bugged me. The EVF was as large as the Canon.
> Having live feedback through the viewfinder on exposure (and white balance) is great ... actually I no longer think about how much exposure to set, just eyeball it and it is very accurate (though I do not do a lot of very low light shooting). The Sony A57 only has a 1.4M dot EVF, while the A7r has a 2.4M so it should look better than what I see.
> 
> I would switch over if I was not shooting wildlife ... actually, I may just upgrade my NEX-3 to a 7 just as a carry around/backup camera.



I shoot mainly wildlife and plenty of BIF's with a NEX-7, If I had a Canon 1DX, that would be the backup to the NEX-7 

All the best.

Danny.


----------



## jaomul

I sold all my Canon gear and bought a m4/3rds EPL5. It is great and small. Picture quality was never am issue and I'm sure the Sony A7 is superior, but you mention birds and wildlife as something you like, I think the Sony May disappoint here but only from what I read and my experience with mirrorless.

I re-bought into the dslr side of things again and now have the olly and a d7100. The dslr is a better option if you want a more flexible camera in my opinion. Also as mentioned fullframe mirrorless equals fullframe lenses.

The olly EM1 or Fugi xt1 seem to tick the boxes for size and focus but from your post I think you need/want  fullframe


----------



## ann

I began using a pen years ago for my point and shoot camera. 

Since that time , I slowly began to change , and now I use an OMD-E1 have sold all my Nikon equipment including a d700 and haven't looked back.

My body feels a lot better at the end of the day, and since I rarely print larger than 11x14 I haven't lost quality


----------



## sonicbuffalo

I have both a Nikon D7100 and just recently bought a full frame D610.  I considered the Sony mirrorless A7, and because it is almost as large as a DSLR, and the lenses are almost as large, and more expensive overall, I decided to stick with Nikon.  I am looking to sell the D7100 and a 18-140 mm lens, and will keep the D610.  I will really miss the D7100 and it only has about 250 clicks on it.  It is practically brand new and I recently shot an auto show of clssic cars in Wilmington, NC.  The photos I got with the 14-24 f/2.8 lens was incredible.  I really want to use the D7100 to shoot the Northeast's Largest Car Show in late July.  If I get the right price, I might go ahead and sell it though.


----------



## sashbar

Ysarex said:


> An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.
> 
> Joe



Why do you think so? 
I think EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF.


----------



## Derrel

sashbar said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think so?
> I think *EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF*.
Click to expand...


Been hearing that for a decade now... "EVF will 'soon' be superior to OVF."  The idea that ANY EVF will soon be *vastly* superior to any OVF is...pretty optimistic I think. EVFs have lag...not a lot in the case of the best, but enough that critically-timing images with an EVF comes down to anticipating what you HOPE will happen; with an optical viewfinder, you are actually seeing what is occurring in real time. And...there's none of that crappy video-y look that EVF's are plagued with.


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think so?
> I think *EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been hearing that for a decade now... "EVF will 'soon' be superior to OVF."  The idea that ANY EVF will soon be *vastly* superior to any OVF is...pretty optimistic I think. EVFs have lag...not a lot in the case of the best, but enough that critically-timing images with an EVF comes down to anticipating what you HOPE will happen; with an optical viewfinder, you are actually seeing what is occurring in real time. And...there's none of that crappy video-y look that EVF's are plagued with.
Click to expand...


Yeh timing is impossible with the A7


----------



## Derrel

One, or two frames out of a day's shooting doesn't magically change the fact that ANY EVF has "some" lag, while an OVF is working at the speed of light.

EVF's are getting better, yes, but for example, the Sony A7's EVF is what really put me off from actually pulling out my credit card and buying it. The camera body itself is reallllly neat, and the *lenses-on-adapters possibilities* for the A7 and A7r were really intriguing, but I could not clearly see the FACE of a man standing 6 feet away through the EVF...not well enough to judge the expression to know whether to shoot, or not shoot. To me, it's the difference between "learning how to compensate": for a poor viewfinder image, versus actually being able to SEE, at the speed of light, exactly what the subject is doing in real-time. Still, the A7 series is nifty technology. I can understand why people like it, despite the current lack of AF lenses for it.

A really honest discussion of the pluses and minuses of the EVF versus OVF is kind of beyond the scope of this forum, but the information is out there. Still, there are a lot of nifty mirrorless cams out there. This weekend at the seashore I was asked to take some photos of a man and his wife with his Olympus PEN EP-5, which we talked about afte the session; that camera is ALMOST EXACTLY the same height and width as my iPhone. A little bit "deeper" though, front to back, but still a VERY small body, and the 14-42mm zoom was also very small. I realllly liked the SIZE of the Pen EP-5 and 14-42mm zoom! Sooooo small!!!! Soooo light!!!!

The rear LCD on that small Olympus was decent, even on a fairly bright beach. To me, THAT's the size that makes a mirrorless a go-anywhere type camera. I deliberately left my big Nikon and its various lenses at home, and carried just an iPhone, so I could enjoy the beach experience with my son. And I did get some decent photos, but still...I think photographically, the "real" mirrorless cameras might be a better choice for more-serious photos. I feel like I could have done better photos with that Oly EP-5 and 14-42mm zoom than with my iPhone 4. There are a lot of neat cameras on the market; Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, Samsung...they all have some nifty offerings. I just think the Sony A7 is NOT really going to be a carry-everywhere camera because....when they DO get the lenses out for it...those lenses will still need to be lenses for full-frame 24x36 coverage; iof I wanted a go-everywhere rig, I would look more at the *really compact* bodies with the *really compact lenses*. If I wanted a carryable, go-anywhere, interchangeable lens camera, I would not really WANT a full-frame sensor in it for my zoom or tele needs. Fuji's idea of APS-C sensor size, with a single, like 23mm lens makes some sense, but I really think the smaller bodied mirrorless models would be easier to carry than an A7 full-frame mirrorless.


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> Yeah...one or two frames out of a hundred makes the point.I could shoot something slow like horse jumping with anything
> 
> Enough with the meaningless examples. How about introducing a real discussion? The OVF Versus EVF Debate | byThom | Thom Hogan
> 
> EVF still has issues. The A7's viewfinder image is pretty sucky compared against what I see through my full-frame Nikon's viewfinder.



And the Nikon sucks compared to the Leica rangefinder


----------



## Ysarex

Derrel said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> An EVF can never be an adequate replacement for an OVF such that you would consider the switch even.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think so?
> I think *EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been hearing that for a decade now... "EVF will 'soon' be superior to OVF."  The idea that ANY EVF will soon be *vastly* superior to any OVF is...pretty optimistic I think. EVFs have lag...not a lot in the case of the best, but enough that critically-timing images with an EVF comes down to anticipating what you HOPE will happen; with an optical viewfinder, you are actually seeing what is occurring in real time. And...there's none of that crappy video-y look that EVF's are plagued with.
Click to expand...


:thumbup: Yes! And there's more. No matter how fast it gets and how clear it gets the EVF isn't "showing" the scene you're about to photograph. The EVF is a software generated interpretation of the scene. You'll encounter some people actually claim that they like the fact that the EVF shows them the exposure they're about to take.






That's a big reason I don't want to see the EVF image. I want to *SEE* what I'm about to photograph -- not a representation of what I'm about to photograph. There is a difference. I'm the photographer, not the software in the camera.

All that said humans are very adaptable critters and I've been using a Fuji X-E2 now since November. I'm happy with the swap I made and I'm doing OK with the EVF. The overall reduction in size and weight of the camera (due largely to the removal of the mirror and OVF) tips the scale for me, but I made a compromise and the loss of the OVF is the biggest loss.

Joe


----------



## Derrel

To me, the quality of a camera's viewfinder system has always, always been a critical aspect of the camera; the better the viewfinder image, the more-usable the viewfinder, the BETTER THE PHOTOS TURN OUT. It's really that simple, and that has been a fundamental issue since cameras evolved to being moved off of their tripods, and into hand-held use.

Last week, I was asked by a family to take a group photo of them; the mom handed me her Nikon D3000 with 18-55 kit lens. O-M-G...the view through the finder was sooooo small that it was very challenging for me to shoot... I literally could NOT see their faces. they had two little kids, both "holdable" aged...I framed the shot, a bit loose, and pressed the shutter halfway, and then fired by looking over the top of the hotshoe, AT THEM, so I could literally "see" when the right time to shoot was. I mean, my gosh...the D3000 had an awful viewfinder image with an f/3.5~5.6 lens on it. The view through the viewfinder to me appeared "grainy", dim, and...awful. I took three shots, two wides, and a tall. They were at Crown Point's Vista House.

I want to be able to SEE what my subject(s) is/are actually doing, real-time.


----------



## sashbar

Ysarex said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think so?
> I think *EVF soon will be vastly superior to any OVF*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been hearing that for a decade now... "EVF will 'soon' be superior to OVF."  The idea that ANY EVF will soon be *vastly* superior to any OVF is...pretty optimistic I think. EVFs have lag...not a lot in the case of the best, but enough that critically-timing images with an EVF comes down to anticipating what you HOPE will happen; with an optical viewfinder, you are actually seeing what is occurring in real time. And...there's none of that crappy video-y look that EVF's are plagued with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> :thumbup: Yes! And there's more. No matter how fast it gets and how clear it gets the EVF isn't "showing" the scene you're about to photograph. The EVF is a software generated interpretation of the scene. You'll encounter some people actually claim that they like the fact that the EVF shows them the exposure they're about to take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big reason I don't want to see the EVF image. I want to *SEE* what I'm about to photograph -- not a representation of what I'm about to photograph. There is a difference. I'm the photographer, not the software in the camera.
> 
> All that said humans are very adaptable critters and I've been using a Fuji X-E2 now since November. I'm happy with the swap I made and I'm doing OK with the EVF. The overall reduction in size and weight of the camera (due largely to the removal of the mirror and OVF) tips the scale for me, but I made a compromise and the loss of the OVF is the biggest loss.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


I Am optimistic   I checked XT-1 EVF and it comes close, I give it another 5 years - and I am pretty sure there will be no noticeable lag at all and no video-y look. And you could see the the representation of an image AND with one click - what you are going to photograph, and it will be of top quality.  And you will be able to see in low light and magnification at will and a lot of other extras.. As soon as they start to sell pro grade mirror less, the progress will accelerate. One of the reasons for the lack of processor power i is the fact that there is one processor doing everything. Why not adding a separate processor exclusively for the viewfinder? Never mind newer, faster chips.  This all about processing speed. One can delay it, but it is just a matter of time, the writing is on the wall


----------



## unpopular

Derrel said:


> Buy a Sony A7r and you'll get a SLIGHTLY smaller body...but the lenses will be just as large as the lenses for a Nikon D600. And at this time there are almost NO lens choices for the A7 series...it's a brand-new mount, and Sony rolled the cameras out with basicvally, no lenses to choose from. trading in a D600 and five lenses for an A7r and no lenses is a bad move.



Well, if you don't mind or prefer manual, you have about every lens under the sun to choose from. While having never actually used it, peaking seems just as good - if not better than AF anyway ... maybe someone else can shed some light on that area.

As for the Fuji, I definitely have a soft spot for them, and the current used prices of the XE1 is very attractive (really way under valued), and the hybrid finder of the X-Pro seems like a perfect solution.


----------



## nzmacro

unpopular said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buy a Sony A7r and you'll get a SLIGHTLY smaller body...but the lenses will be just as large as the lenses for a Nikon D600. And at this time there are almost NO lens choices for the A7 series...it's a brand-new mount, and Sony rolled the cameras out with basicvally, no lenses to choose from. trading in a D600 and five lenses for an A7r and no lenses is a bad move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you don't mind or prefer manual, you have about every lens under the sun to choose from. While having never actually used it, peaking seems just as good - if not better than AF anyway ... maybe someone else can shed some light on that area.
> 
> As for the Fuji, I definitely have a soft spot for them, and the current used prices of the XE1 is very attractive (really way under valued), and the hybrid finder of the X-Pro seems like a perfect solution.
Click to expand...




> Well, if you don't mind or prefer manual, you have about every lens under the sun to choose from. While having never actually used it, peaking seems just as good - if not better than AF anyway ... maybe someone else can shed some light on that area.



Only MF lenses here. Focus peaking is fantastic with the right lenses, focus peaking is on 100% of the time. Lag, I've yet to see it. Thousands of BIF shots here and power boat racing, so they can't all be flukes surely. Been down this track with others before regarding EVF's, heck I came from OVF's  Then we can also magnify the image in the EVF for critical focusing on static birds. BIF's and high speed action I use focus peaking.

The simple answer is, EVF's can track and shoot just fine, if they couldn't I wouldn't be taking what I do and with MF at the same time. I would have to head to A DSLR and (gulp) AF, that's not going to happen  Why change what works well. 

Danny.


----------



## nzmacro

Very interesting if you are into mirrorless AF ..........







Well worth spending the time on this video.

Danny.


----------



## cgw

Had a look at the the Fuji X-T1? Fuji.ca may well repeat last summer's deals on kits, bodies and lenses--worth watching for at downtown shops like Aden that usually have the lowest Fuji X prices in the GTA.


----------



## JustJazzie

I haven't read all the comments yet, I simply don't have time this morning but I thought I would share my experience.

I ditched my (entry level, so nothing like yours!) dslr about two years ago now, for the sony nex7. I found myself in a similar position as you. I stopped bringing my camera with me because it was just one more; heavy, fragile, expensive; thing to tote along in the diaper bag.  I met someone with a nex5 that I borrowed on a hike when I left my camera at home. When I uploaded the pictures I was blown away at the quality, and I started heavily researching the nex line. It was a learning curve switching from a dslr, but after a few months I was in love. I have used my mirror less more in two years, than I had used my dslr in nearly 4. It is always in my purse when I need it. The focus peaking is a god send for my terrible eyesight. Once I couldn't get my camera to work who my new strobes and nearly cried at the thought of having to go back to a dslr. (Luckily I finally figured out how to turn off live view mode)

Fast forward to this weekend. My boys got their first dirt bikes and my AF just COULD NOT keep up. All their faces are blurry from motion. I'm pretty disappointed looking through all the pictures I got. So I'm back to looking at dslr's for sports, and honestly; I think I'm going to take some expert advice and just learn better (older) techniques (like prego using) to make my camera work until the technology in mirror less catches up. Even if I bought a nice dslr with a sports lens, it would end up a $1000 shelf ornament 99% of the time. And if we get into trail riding as a family- I don't want to lug around a huge dslr with me so it would probably get left behind once again.
So for me, the benefits of mirror less outweigh the drawbacks. Yes, dslr would get me better quality pictures than my mirror less (for sports, everything else is actually higher iq than I was getting with my xsi) I'll take my blurry smiles over the nothing I would have probably ended up with had I kept my dslr.

Good luck with your decision!! It's not an easy one.


----------



## gsgary

JustJazzie said:


> I haven't read all the comments yet, I simply don't have time this morning but I thought I would share my experience.
> 
> I ditched my (entry level, so nothing like yours!) dslr about two years ago now, for the sony nex7. I found myself in a similar position as you. I stopped bringing my camera with me because it was just one more; heavy, fragile, expensive; thing to tote along in the diaper bag.  I met someone with a nex5 that I borrowed on a hike when I left my camera at home. When I uploaded the pictures I was blown away at the quality, and I started heavily researching the nex line. It was a learning curve switching from a dslr, but after a few months I was in love. I have used my mirror less more in two years, than I had used my dslr in nearly 4. It is always in my purse when I need it. The focus peaking is a god send for my terrible eyesight. Once I couldn't get my camera to work who my new strobes and nearly cried at the thought of having to go back to a dslr. (Luckily I finally figured out how to turn off live view mode)
> 
> Fast forward to this weekend. My boys got their first dirt bikes and my AF just COULD NOT keep up. All their faces are blurry from motion. I'm pretty disappointed looking through all the pictures I got. So I'm back to looking at dslr's for sports, and honestly; I think I'm going to take some expert advice and just learn better (older) techniques (like prego using) to make my camera work until the technology in mirror less catches up. Even if I bought a nice dslr with a sports lens, it would end up a $1000 shelf ornament 99% of the time. And if we get into trail riding as a family- I don't want to lug around a huge dslr with me so it would probably get left behind once again.
> So for me, the benefits of mirror less outweigh the drawbacks. Yes, dslr would get me better quality pictures than my mirror less (for sports, everything else is actually higher iq than I was getting with my xsi) I'll take my blurry smiles over the nothing I would have probably ended up with had I kept my dslr.
> 
> Good luck with your decision!! It's not an easy one.



Have you checked what the shutter speed was on the shot ? it wants to be 1/500+


----------



## JustJazzie

gsgary said:


> Have you checked what the shutter speed was on the shot ? it wants to be 1/500+


 Thanks for the suggestion Gary! It was bright out. My shutter was 1/1250. F8 Somehow my ISO got knocked to 800...so I know some of that is noise but I think it's mostly a focus issue. The time it takes To focus, and then the shutter lag- he was well out of focus before my camera could snap.


----------



## JustJazzie

nzmacro said:


> Very interesting if you are into mirrorless AF ..........  YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU&list=UUqpOf_Nl5F4tjwlxOVS6h8A  Well worth spending the time on this video.  Danny.


 Thanks for posting this video! It really makes me think I might end up going for the a6000. I don't need sports magazine quality shots, but I would like some decent ones!


----------



## gsgary

JustJazzie said:


> Thanks for the suggestion Gary! It was bright out. My shutter was 1/1250. F8 Somehow my ISO got knocked to 800...so I know some of that is noise but I think it's mostly a focus issue. The time it takes To focus, and then the shutter lag- he was well out of focus before my camera could snap.



1/250 is not fast enough I used to shoot MX every weekend for magazines


----------



## sonicbuffalo

The NEX and now A6000 line that Sony manufacturer's help make great pictures.  That being said, they're still not equal to the quality you get with a DSLR.


----------



## JustJazzie

gsgary said:


> 1/250 is not fast enough I used to shoot MX every weekend for magazines


 1/ 1, 2 5 0 not 1/250


----------



## Derrel

JustJazzie said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1/250 is not fast enough I used to shoot MX every weekend for magazines
> 
> 
> 
> 1/ 1, 2 5 0 not 1/250
Click to expand...


They regularly serve realllly strong, stoud beers and ales where gary lives, and it's already past mightnight there...! lol!


----------



## Derrel

nzmacro said:
			
		

> Very interesting if you are into mirrorless AF ..........
> 
> Well worth spending the time on this video.
> 
> Danny.







It's even MORE worthhwile comparing* The Camera Store'*s February, 2014 video, where they praised the sh*+ out of the Fuji XT-1, and then comparing what they said about it then against what they say about it NOW in this subsequent video. Remember--these videos are being done by a Canadian company that wants to sell cameras and lenses.

Here are a few quotes and time stamps for the earlier hype abiout the fuji XT-1:
Feb 16, 2014 video produced by The Camera Store
6:00 we have to talk about autofocus. 
6:23 "It's like a machine gun".
6:26 "And we're certainly getting a full eight frames per second shooting."
6:44 At 8 frames per second, it followed that very nicely!"
6:55 "I'm getting a really good hit rate."
7:00 "I'm really impressed!"


And now, in the video linked above in post #33, today, we see things like this said about the XT-1:

5:44 "But when it came to the continuous autofocusing tests and this fast shooting, this is probably going to be the bottom of the bunch." "It doesn't have a very fast frame rate that it can sustain when it's trying to track moving subjects."  "The buffer filled up pretty quick too."


6:21 "The other thing that I find ,sometimes it has a really HARD and slow time trying to get the initial focus."

Cough, cough,cough.


----------



## nzmacro

sonicbuffalo said:


> The NEX and now A6000 line that Sony manufacturer's help make great pictures.  That being said, they're still not equal to the quality you get with a DSLR.



That would depend on what DSLR, what subjects and who is behind it. I post my NEX-7 shots next to DSLR users here all the time, they don't exactly laugh. I also shoot next to folks using a 1Dx and several using 5D MK III's and one using a 7D, they don't laugh at the results either, in fact most are horribly shocked and that's using MF lenses. 

All the best and that simply depends on a lot of things 

Danny.


----------



## nzmacro

LOL Derrel   just goes to show and take everything with a grain of salt I guess . Well spotted Derrel. 

Danny.


----------



## cgw

Derrel said:


> nzmacro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting if you are into mirrorless AF ..........
> 
> Well worth spending the time on this video.
> 
> Danny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's even MORE worthhwile comparing* The Camera Store'*s February, 2014 video, where they praised the sh*+ out of the Fuji XT-1, and then comparing what they said about it then against what they say about it NOW in this subsequent video. Remember--these videos are being done by a Canadian company that wants to sell cameras and lenses.
> 
> Here are a few quotes and time stamps for the earlier hype abiout the fuji XT-1:
> Feb 16, 2014 video produced by The Camera Store
> 6:00 we have to talk about autofocus.
> 6:23 "It's like a machine gun".
> 6:26 "And we're certainly getting a full eight frames per second shooting."
> 6:44 At 8 frames per second, it followed that very nicely!"
> 6:55 "I'm getting a really good hit rate."
> 7:00 "I'm really impressed!"
> 
> 
> And now, in the video linked above in post #33, today, we see things like this said about the XT-1:
> 
> 5:44 "But when it came to the continuous autofocusing tests and this fast shooting, this is probably going to be the bottom of the bunch." "It doesn't have a very fast frame rate that it can sustain when it's trying to track moving subjects." "The buffer filled up pretty quick too."
> 
> 
> 6:21 "The other thing that I find ,sometimes it has a really HARD and slow time trying to get the initial focus."
> 
> Cough, cough,cough.
Click to expand...


Nary a pom-pom in sight, either. I can hear the forehead slaps at Fuji.ca now.


----------



## mikeyidaho

A month or so ago I traded my whole dslr setup (d5200 and 4 lenses, mostly primes) in for the new Sony A6000 for exactly the reason the OP expressed. I was leaving my dslr home far too often because of the bulk, yes I know it isn't huge compared to a full frame but still was holding me back. Plus I didn't like how dslr tend to draw attention in street photography when you're trying to remain inconspicuous. Love just about everything about the a6000. Top of the list would be the size of weight especially with the Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS which is my go to prime for most walk around use. It's ridiculously light while still feeling like a quality piece of kit. Close second would be the autofocus, if you've read any reviews you'll hear how crazy fast the autofocus is. My d5200 might have been near as fast in some situations like low light but with the a6000 having 179 phase detect focus points covering 92% of the frame it blows it away for versatility. Don't use the potential of the 11 fps shooting but it's nice to have available. The switch from OVF to EVF wasn't a big deal for me and was a benefit in many situations. I enjoy being able to see how the photo with turn out as far as exposure and depth of field which a OVF just can't do. I use the EVF almost exclusively in bright light. And I lost nothing in image quality going from the d5200 to the a6000. 
I just love having my essential walk around kit being so small fitting in a bag my old dslr body and small prime probably wouldn't fit in, let alone with the accessories I carry (battery, memory cards, ND and CP filters, lenspen, manfrotto pocket tripod, remote control, expodisc....). For a $650 body it's a ridiculous value since it tends to be compared to much more expensive competitors. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Victo

cgw said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nzmacro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting if you are into mirrorless AF ..........
> 
> Well worth spending the time on this video.
> 
> Danny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's even MORE worthhwile comparing* The Camera Store'*s February, 2014 video, where they praised the sh*+ out of the Fuji XT-1, and then comparing what they said about it then against what they say about it NOW in this subsequent video. Remember--these videos are being done by a Canadian company that wants to sell cameras and lenses.
> 
> Here are a few quotes and time stamps for the earlier hype abiout the fuji XT-1:
> Feb 16, 2014 video produced by The Camera Store
> 6:00 we have to talk about autofocus.
> 6:23 "It's like a machine gun".
> 6:26 "And we're certainly getting a full eight frames per second shooting."
> 6:44 At 8 frames per second, it followed that very nicely!"
> 6:55 "I'm getting a really good hit rate."
> 7:00 "I'm really impressed!"
> 
> 
> And now, in the video linked above in post #33, today, we see things like this said about the XT-1:
> 
> 5:44 "But when it came to the continuous autofocusing tests and this fast shooting, this is probably going to be the bottom of the bunch." "It doesn't have a very fast frame rate that it can sustain when it's trying to track moving subjects." "The buffer filled up pretty quick too."
> 
> 
> 6:21 "The other thing that I find ,sometimes it has a really HARD and slow time trying to get the initial focus."
> 
> Cough, cough,cough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nary a pom-pom in sight, either. I can hear the forehead slaps at Fuji.ca now.
Click to expand...


I had this camera for a day. It is a very, very good camera. Fun to use, quality all round, the glass is ridiculously good. It just murders any cropped DSLR. One of those very rare cameras once tried you hate to see it go. I do not know about Canada, but in UK you have to pre-order XT-1 and wait. It sells faster than any other camera - by a country mile. I can not hear any forehead slaps, FUJI hit the bull's eye here, big time.


----------



## Derrel

Here's an article written by Thom Hogan, describing how a Nikon D7100 outfit, a Fuji XT-1 outfit, and an Olympus E-M1 outfit ACTUALLY worked on his two-week Galapagos workshop trip earlier this year.Equipment Used at the Workshop | byThom Sites | Thom Hogan

"The E-M1 and X-T1 were slightly more of a mixed bag, mostly attributable to focus. While most of us figured out ways to deal with fast motion and getting in focus shots, for me the EM-1 turned out to be the better choice, and I believe that is mostly due to lenses and the snap of the initial focus acquisition. The long telephoto option for the X-T1 does not seem to be as fast at adjusting focus as the m4/3 options we were using, and tended to move less rapidly to initial focus. Ifand thats a big ifyou acquire focus and can keep the moving subject where the X-T1 wants it with the 55-200mm lens zoomed in, youre fine, its actually better at holding focus tracking on regularly moving subjects than the E-M1 by a bit, though it will sometimes vary the burst rate doing so. Beware of what happens when you temporarily lose focus: more often than not youre hosed for that sequence (not true of the D7100 or Nikon DSLRs at all when set properly. as their phase detect systems usually reacquire lost focus very rapidly). The Fujifilm often couldnt reacquire initial focus quick enough when I lost it and restarted a focus sequence on a moving object."

And so on and so on.


----------



## LebronPhoto

I switched from a Nikon D700 complete with pro lenses to an Olympus OMD EM5.  I don't regret the switch. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sonicbuffalo

I just recently sold off all of my Nikon 610 and lenses and bought the Sony A7.  I will be getting the 70-200 f/4 Sony FE lens, and my reasons are the same as the OP.  I weighed the Fuji XT1 and decided even though it produced incredible colors, and sharpness, so does the Sony A7.  After shooting with the D610, I decided I wanted full frame.  I love the size of the Sony and I already take it everywhere I go.  My once 30 lb. backpack has turned into a 5 lb. backpack.  I bought the 43 flash for the Sony, and I'm pretty much ready to roll again.  I don't regret the change over one bit.  I think mirrorless is the wave of the future, and DSLR's will become obsolete.  Most people, as Darrel stated, want even smaller, as in camera phones.  The bottom line is image quality.  I think I have that, plus a small and lightweight rig.


----------



## bigal1000

DarkShadow said:


> I have a Samsung NX300 that has a 20.3 pix sensor the same specs in size as in a Nikon Crop sensor DSLR and its fantastic. 8 FPS and a Shutter speed up 1/6000th is impressive.The downside with mine is no view finder and I cant see the LCD on sunny days. That said, no way I would ditch my DSLR Cameras.



Get one with a EVF then you can use it on sunny days,that's why I sold my NX and went with a Fuji XE2.....................


----------



## sonicbuffalo

bigal1000 said:


> DarkShadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Samsung NX300 that has a 20.3 pix sensor the same specs in size as in a Nikon Crop sensor DSLR and its fantastic. 8 FPS and a Shutter speed up 1/6000th is impressive.The downside with mine is no view finder and I cant see the LCD on sunny days. That said, no way I would ditch my DSLR Cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get one with a EVF then you can use it on sunny days,that's why I sold my NX and went with a Fuji XE2.....................
Click to expand...



...Get one with an EVF, then...

at least some proper English.....sorry Bigal1000


----------



## Browncoat

Even though this is a necro thread, I'll offer up my experience as well:

I've also made the switch from DSLR to mirrorless, with no regrets. Traded in a D800 and all of my lenses (all f/2.8 glass) and jumped ship from Nikon to Fuji.


----------



## sonicbuffalo

Browncoat said:


> Even though this is a necro thread, I'll offer up my experience as well:
> 
> I've also made the switch from DSLR to mirrorless, with no regrets. Traded in a D800 and all of my lenses (all f/2.8 glass) and jumped ship from Nikon to Fuji.



Browncoat....it's all your fault!  When I read your post on the -ites site, I started thinking about where the future lies.  I figured I'd take my lumps now rather than a full decapatation later when my equipment wouldn't have been worth much.  I still have 20 odd days for you to talk me into a Fuji.  I was almost there but I found a sweet deal on a Sony A7 refurbbed deal with less than 65 clicks on it.  I like it, just wish there were more native lenses for it.  As for Fuji, I have nothing bad to say except they should  shoot raw @ 100 ISO.  Other than that, they take fabulous pictures.  Thanks Browncoat for turning me on to the wave of the now/future!


----------



## Browncoat

The A7 is a fine camera. The guy @ MPEX tried pushing one on me, and I took it for a little test drive. It was still too DSLR-like for what I was trying to achieve. Maybe once the rebel in me has settled down a bit, I'll start taking a look at the interchangeable lens mirrorless models. My first DSLR was a Sony, before I switched to Nikon.


----------



## bigal1000

sonicbuffalo said:


> bigal1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkShadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Samsung NX300 that has a 20.3 pix sensor the same specs in size as in a Nikon Crop sensor DSLR and its fantastic. 8 FPS and a Shutter speed up 1/6000th is impressive.The downside with mine is no view finder and I cant see the LCD on sunny days. That said, no way I would ditch my DSLR Cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get one with a EVF then you can use it on sunny days,that's why I sold my NX and went with a Fuji XE2.....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...Get one with an EVF, then...
> 
> at least some proper English.....sorry Bigal1000
Click to expand...


Sorry for the mistake Mr. Frigging Perfect !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take a hike.


----------



## runnah

bigal1000 said:


> Sorry for the mistake Mr. Frigging Perfect !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take a hike.



He should! Exercise is important for a happy and healthy lifestyle.


----------



## sonicbuffalo

bigal1000 said:


> sonicbuffalo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigal1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get one with a EVF then you can use it on sunny days,that's why I sold my NX and went with a Fuji XE2.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Get one with an EVF, then...
> 
> at least some proper English.....sorry Bigal1000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry for the mistake Mr. Frigging Perfect !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take a hike.
Click to expand...


BigAl.....come on....don't take me too seriously....Imake mistakes two!


----------



## gsgary

There is 1 big problem with the XT1 if you shoot lots of low light it will only shoot upto iso6400 in raw anything after is JPG


----------



## sonicbuffalo

gsgary said:


> There is 1 big problem with the XT1 if you shoot lots of low light it will only shoot upto iso6400 in raw anything after is JPG



Thanks gsgary.....I only knew that it would NOT shoot raw at or below 100, which didn't make sense to me.  Thanks for sharing all of your knowledge with us.  I guess I am glad I bought the A7.  What flipped the switch for you to get it over, say, the Olympus?


----------



## gsgary

sonicbuffalo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is 1 big problem with the XT1 if you shoot lots of low light it will only shoot upto iso6400 in raw anything after is JPG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks gsgary.....I only knew that it would NOT shoot raw at or below 100, which didn't make sense to me.  Thanks for sharing all of your knowledge with us.  I guess I am glad I bought the A7.  What flipped the switch for you to get it over, say, the Olympus?
Click to expand...

I was only ever going to buy the A7 because it's sensor is the same size as my Leica's


----------



## sonicbuffalo

Which one takes better pictures?  I guess I shouldn't ask that one!


----------



## gsgary

sonicbuffalo said:


> Which one takes better pictures?  I guess I shouldn't ask that one!



It's obvious


----------



## sonicbuffalo

gsgary said:


> sonicbuffalo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one takes better pictures?  I guess I shouldn't ask that one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious
Click to expand...


How many lenses do you have for the Leica?  I guess a better question is why did Sony decide to make their new cameras very, very compatible to the Leica?  WIth lenses, accessories, and even the cameras themselves are almost like a Leica.  The big difference is the money spent.  I bet your pictures on the Sony are almost to the quality you get on the Leica?  Do you agree?  I mean for the money spent.


----------



## gsgary

5 lenses 2 50mm, 2 35mm and a 28mm those are the only focal lengths I use on my Leica's, the adapter I use cost me £258 the Voigtlander close focus it reduces minimum focus by more than half they are different on each camera because my Leicas are film cameras if you look in b+w section you can see what the 28mm looks like


----------



## sonicbuffalo

gsgary said:


> 5 lenses 2 50mm, 2 35mm and a 28mm those are the only focal lengths I use on my Leica's, the adapter I use cost me £258 the Voigtlander close focus it reduces minimum focus by more than half they are different on each camera because my Leicas are film cameras if you look in b+w section you can see what the 28mm looks like



What do you shoot the most?  You must specialize in a certain genre to get short focal lengths?


----------



## gsgary

sonicbuffalo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 lenses 2 50mm, 2 35mm and a 28mm those are the only focal lengths I use on my Leica's, the adapter I use cost me £258 the Voigtlander close focus it reduces minimum focus by more than half they are different on each camera because my Leicas are film cameras if you look in b+w section you can see what the 28mm looks like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you shoot the most?  You must specialize in a certain genre to get short focal lengths?
Click to expand...

I will shot anything, I shoot more film than digital, I shoot quite a lot of street photography but I used to only shoot sport untill about 3 years ago


----------



## gsgary

Here's some sports shots with the A7 and 50mm












This shot is iso 16,000


----------



## sonicbuffalo

Nice.....really tack sharp shots...!


----------



## Mirrorless Journey

It took me two years to complete my switch from full frame to Micro 4/3. I sold my last 5D Mark II and lenses in july. I have no regret. I even started a blog to talk about that at Mirrorless Journey


----------



## Gary A.

Derrel said:


> Here's an article written by Thom Hogan, describing how a Nikon D7100 outfit, a Fuji XT-1 outfit, and an Olympus E-M1 outfit ACTUALLY worked on his two-week Galapagos workshop trip earlier this year.Equipment Used at the Workshop | byThom Sites | Thom Hogan
> 
> "The E-M1 and X-T1 were slightly more of a mixed bag, mostly attributable to focus. While most of us figured out ways to deal with fast motion and getting in focus shots, for me the EM-1 turned out to be the better choice, and I believe that is mostly due to lenses and the snap of the initial focus acquisition. The long telephoto option for the X-T1 does not seem to be as fast at adjusting focus as the m4/3 options we were using, and tended to move less rapidly to initial focus. Ifand thats a big ifyou acquire focus and can keep the moving subject where the X-T1 wants it with the 55-200mm lens zoomed in, youre fine, its actually better at holding focus tracking on regularly moving subjects than the E-M1 by a bit, though it will sometimes vary the burst rate doing so. Beware of what happens when you temporarily lose focus: more often than not youre hosed for that sequence (not true of the D7100 or Nikon DSLRs at all when set properly. as their phase detect systems usually reacquire lost focus very rapidly). The Fujifilm often couldnt reacquire initial focus quick enough when I lost it and restarted a focus sequence on a moving object."
> 
> And so on and so on.


I shoot with 1D's, EM1 and the XT1. Nothing compares to the AF of a pro level dSLR. But all cameras are compromises. That superior AF comes at a price of affordability and portability. A 1DX is nearly 5x more expensive than a XT1 and come in at 440 g while the 1D weights in at 1.54 kg. This isn't an apple to apples comparison in my book.

Mirrorless cameras work differently than dSLR's. Not different good or different bad, but certainly different.

The XT1 does not track. And I think many are confusing 'tracking' with 'holding focus'. I was confusing until I worked with the Fuji. 
For action photography, a dSLR is clearly better than a mirrorless. But just because a dSLR is better, does not mean a mirrorless is useless for action. I found in good light that the Fuji will/may acquire focus just a bit faster than my 1D. Both cameras are pretty equal in acquiring AF using a single point mode. What difference there may be is insignificant. In very low light the 1D kicks the Fuji's butt.

The XT1 will hold focus in Continuous as long as you keep the subject inside the focus reticle. Once the subject moves out of the focus box ... it's all over. It gets worse because at 8FPS the EVF cannot maintain EVF updates so you start losing camera vision. But once you realize the shortfalls you can accommodate and work with and around the shortfalls. Shooting the XT1 for action you will work harder for less keepers than a dSLR. For some/most hobbyist, that's okay.

#1





#2





#3





#4





#5





#6





#7





#8





I can post this stuff all day long.

Gary


----------



## rexbobcat

My biggest concern would be autofocus speed. Even though many mirrorless cameras now have phase autofocus in the form of a hybrid system, they still seem a bit slower than DSLRs with dedicated phase-detect autofocus. If you're in decent light it's generally fine, but in low light and in situations where contrast is limited (smoke, fog, haze, shadowed areas) mirrorless cameras can struggle a bit.

Other than that, they're light, have great sensors for the most part, and can easily be stored. Plus, lenses focal lengths/apertures are often cheaper for mirrorless systems.

I'm wanting to get the Fuji XE-2 or X-Pro 2 (when it's released) just because the ease-of-use to quality factor is so incredible.


----------



## Mirrorless Journey

Well, the AF on static subject is faster on micro 4/3 than it was on my 5D Mark II and it is always spot-on. You can't have back or front focus problems. The GH4 is speced at -4EV for AF which is excellent. I was really surprise by it's performances on C-AF recently when I photograph my daughter's cross-country team in action. The tracking AF is not that good but I didn't have it on the 5DII anyway. The C-AF on the 5DII was really bad. With the 70-200mm f/2,8, It was not able to C-AF on her consistently when she was playing soccer.

The AF is still a bit faster on micro 4/3 than on the Fuji but it's getting closer (with the XT-1) and we can hope the X-Pro2 will be even better.


----------



## goodguy

I just moved from DX to FX so I am with you on the full frame band wagon.
The thing is that what really is big is the lenses, not so much the body, if you want good fast glass with full frame they will be BIG!
If you want smaller system then you will need to go to micro 4/3, great systems but in low light they will not hold a candle with a full frame.
I dont see myself moving away from DLSR for now but I am considering adding the Nikon 1, if is tiny and in good lighting conditionds is fantastic and if I want I can mount the F lenses (with adaptor) on it and get 2.7 magnification on it.
So I can enjoy both worlds.


----------



## Mirrorless Journey

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.


----------



## Derrel

Since you mentioned three specific cameras, I figured I would enter them into the DxO Mark comparison page and generate some actual test result numbers.

Nikon D750 versus Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 versus Canon EOS 5D Mark II - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

Nikon D750
Overall, 93; Color Depth 24.8 bits;Dynamic Range 14.5 EV, Low Light ISO 2956.

Canon 5D Mark II
Overall, 79; Color Depth 23.7 bits;Dynamic Range 11.9 EV, Low Light ISO 1815.

Panasonic Lumix GH4
Overall, 74; Color Depth 23.2 bits;Dynamic Range 12.8 EV, Low Light ISO 791.


----------



## Mirrorless Journey

I never relied on DxOMark. I prefer to go shoot with the camera and look at what I get in different places/times/lighting conditions and make up my mind with the results instead of shooting a piece of paper in a controlled environment. Real life shooting >>>>>> DxOMark in my book. Sorry.


----------



## goodguy

Mirrorless Journey said:


> I never relied on DxOMark. I prefer to go shoot with the camera and look at what I get in different places/times/lighting conditions and make up my mind with the results instead of shooting a piece of paper in a controlled environment. Real life shooting >>>>>> DxOMark in my book. Sorry.


There is no doubt micro 4/3 cameras are very capable cameras, I saw pictures taken with them in different ISO settings and was very impressed.
If somebody wants to use micro 4/3 then that perfectly fine but no matter how you look at it they will not work as well as full frame in low light and we are talking about a big advantage to full frame.
I just upgraded from a VERY capable crop sensor camera to the D750 and the difference is nothing short of amazing.
If for a micro 4/3 user the camera fulfill all his/her needs then that's perfect, for me today I can tell you full frame is a minimum I don't see going down from any time soon.
Low light performance is something which for me is a must, don't want to make a compromise about it.
I read a small reply from a GH4 user and while he stated he loves his camera he also said he tries not to go above 2000 ISO in low light situations.


----------



## Derrel

Mirrorless Journey said:


> I never relied on DxOMark. I prefer to go shoot with the camera and look at what I get in different places/times/lighting conditions and make up my mind with the results instead of shooting a piece of paper in a controlled environment. Real life shooting >>>>>> DxOMark in my book. Sorry.



I have checked every single camera I have owned against DxO Mark's tests; their results are THE MOST ACCURATE characterization of actual performance that I could possibly imagine. Like the crappy performance of the Nikon D70; the very wide DR but weak high ISO performance of the Fuji S5 Pro; the beautiful color and wide Dynamic range of the D3x; the absolutely chitty sensor in the D2x; the good, solid, yet outdated sensor in the Canon 5D classic. I've owned all those cameras, and the DxO Mark data are exceedingly accurate in showing the strengths and weaknesses of all those cameras.

Your claims about astounding ISO performance in the GH4 are pretty strong claims, but you're right, it pales in comparison to the D750. When somebody joins a forum and picks a name like "Mirrorless Journey", I would naturally expect some type of non-objective glorification of the choice that user has made. But the rest of the world wants objective data,and deserves an unbiased viewpoint regarding boasts and wild, generalized claims. Data arrived at by way of scientific tests, with objective results is what DxO mark provides about the three cameras you singled out by name. I am familiar with people trying to justify their purchasing decisions in on-line forums, but the data are what they are, and your claims seem to be out of line with the data. Trying to cast doubt on DxO Mark's data is a familiar tactic. I've seen that before, but as I said, I've looked at the cameras I have owned and shot, and the data seem exceptionally indicative of the weaknesses and strengths of each camera I've used.


----------



## Scatterbrained

Mirrorless Journey said:


> You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.


The problem with shooting under uncontrolled conditions is that you can't be sure  of the validity outcome.  For example, shooting at iso 6400 in the middle of the night outside is going to render a whole lot more noise than shooting at iso 6400 in the afternoon.  Shooting at high iso because there is no light vs shooting at high iso because you need a high shutterspeed are two different things.   That's why controlled testing matters.


----------



## The_Traveler

Too much of this argument is like comparing running shoes to fishing boots; the strength for either one is totally dependent on the primary use and requirements.

I would love to shoot full frame if the camera/lens were light and small and thus maneuverable - and the high iso performance would be just an added plus.


----------



## SnappingShark

I am not a professional.
I do not print out HUGE prints.
I shoot photographs for my own enjoyment, and to capture moments of my life and/or those around me.

I have an issue with lifting heavy stuff on one of my arms - and so for me the m43 system is perfect, and in fact, I think my photography has improved since I made the switch! (Although of course, that is questionable heh).
I would like to think of full frame vs crop vs m43 like cell phones.
full frame = iphone 6+ (big, does everything blah blah blah)
crop = iphone 6 (just not as impressive as the 6+)
m43 = android note 4 (big, but you don't notice cos its light, yet so customizable).

anyhoo - I love my m43 system!


----------



## sashbar

The digital camera choice is much wider these days than it was even 5 years ago, there are different types of camera now capable of serious IQ.

Not long ago you had a DSLR that was a "serious" camera and some amateurs bridge camera as a back up: travel, family snapshots etc.  but really it was not a competitor to your DSLR.

Now we have different types of cameras that can compete or be preferable to DSLR  in some situations. They all can be considered as "first choice" cameras depending on you specific needs and the  kind of photography, since they all have passed that threshold where the IQ is professionally accepted.

So I think we have passed that stage where photographers had one main camera, and it was a DSLR.  These days I think a dedicated hobbyist may have three cameras that together can meet his demands completely. Hey even AFP/Getty pros are being given a little Ricoh as a back up.

The best, versatile package for me now would be Ricoh GR, FUJI X-T1 and Nikon D750. Each of these cameras is capable of stunning, professional image quality and each has its unique strengths. Each has all the controls and customisation options you need. Each was made for serious photography. I have got two of them and probably will add the third one later, when I sell my DX Nikon stuff.

What stops me now from buying D750 is the suspicious that it will not be used too often because in my view high ISO (above 12800) is overrated, simply because it is not needed often.  ISO 6400 is absolutely a working one now with X-T1, night city shots come up very good even with SOOC JPEGS with no pp, and this is enough for my photography.

Interestingly, my perception of different cameras has shifted to the point where I regard X -T1 as a universal Jack-of-all-trade camera that will be good in 80% of the time, whereas the little GR and the big (do not laugh) D750 are in fact more specialised cameras that are needed for those 20%. (Well, maybe Ricoh is used more often since it is with me almost all the time. )

I think it will be a common trend, with mirrorless getting better and better, DSLRs will be shifted to a specialised camera niche. Not soon, but eventually.  DX though is doomed I think.  I realised it after shooting  with little Ricoh and X-T1. Both give me better IQ than DX Nikon glass.


----------



## goodguy

Mirrorless Journey said:


> You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.


Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.


----------



## sashbar

goodguy said:


> Mirrorless Journey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
> If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.
Click to expand...


Where did you get that idea of 4 times more light for a FF sensor?  If it gets 4 times more light with the same scene, it means the image is overexposed by 4 stops 

It does not work like that in real life. In real life an APS-C and even more so 4/3 camera can use a wider aperture for the same shot, simply because of a deeper DoF. Which allows for lower ISO than FF for the same shot.

With a FF camera you often need to step down the aperture, because the DoF is too shallow for many shots and then crack up the ISO to compensate for that  Yes, high ISO performance is great with FF, but 4/3 sensors do not need that ISO for the same shot in the first place. 

So there is an obvious way around that. 
As I said FF high ISO is often overrated .


----------



## Gary A.

goodguy said:


> Mirrorless Journey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
> If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.
Click to expand...

Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.


----------



## sashbar

Gary A. said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless Journey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
> If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.
Click to expand...


You can also put it this way:
Let's say  you shoot a particular scene with both 4/3 and FF and you want a particular DoF and shutter speed (surprise,surprise)
With 4/3, let's say, you are using 1.2 aperture and 1/100 shutter speed
With FF camera, for the same scene you keep the same shutter speed, but need to stop down the aperture, because otherwise DoF will be way too shallow.  So you stop it down by two stops compared to 4/3.
Strictly speaking that means FOR THE SAME SHOT there will be 4 TIMES LESS light on the the each sq mm of FF sensor than it was with 4//3.


----------



## goodguy

sashbar said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless Journey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
> If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get that idea of 4 times more light for a FF sensor?  If it gets 4 times more light with the same scene, it means the image is overexposed by 4 stops
> 
> It does not work like that in real life. In real life an APS-C and even more so 4/3 camera can use a wider aperture for the same shot, simply because of a deeper DoF. Which allows for lower ISO than FF for the same shot.
> 
> With a FF camera you often need to step down the aperture, because the DoF is too shallow for many shots and then crack up the ISO to compensate for that  Yes, high ISO performance is great with FF, but 4/3 sensors do not need that ISO for the same shot in the first place.
> 
> So there is an obvious way around that.
> As I said FF high ISO is often overrated .
Click to expand...

My info about MFT takes 1/4 the light then FF I got from this interesting video






I will not get into the need to close aperture to get more DOF on FF as I am not a scientist and I think this is much more complex but I can share with you my personal experience which might have value or might not, for me it does so you may accept it or not.
My old D7100 was a great camera and most of my shots came out nice and sharp but I tried to get them not in f2.8 as it might come from time to time a weee bit soft.
Now with my FF or FX I can shoot at f2.8 and honestly I am still waiting to find ONE picture that isn't in focus.
AF system on the D750 is much more advanced and my personal skills keep improving so those might be the main reasons for my sharp results but the fact is that I can shoot at f2.8 all day long if I want.

Bottom line I will be the last person on this planet to disrespect MFT, I saw too many results and too many pictures of these systems to know they are VERY good but for me I want the added low light performance and all the advantages FF is giving.
I am sure Nikon and Canon in the future will come out with FF mirrorless which will replace their wonderful DSLRs and as long as their cameras will work with my DSLR lenses I will be right there with my visa in hand.


----------



## goodguy

Gary A. said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless Journey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
> If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.
Click to expand...

Check my replay with Tony's video, if you disagree with his video I am sure you can contact him and explain to him where he was wrong, to me it looks very simple.


----------



## goodguy

sashbar said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless Journey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
> If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can also put it this way:
> Let's say  you shoot a particular scene with both 4/3 and FF and you want a particular DoF and shutter speed (surprise,surprise)
> With 4/3, let's say, you are using 1.2 aperture and 1/100 shutter speed
> With FF camera, for the same scene you keep the same shutter speed, but need to stop down the aperture, because otherwise DoF will be way too shallow.  So you stop it down by two stops compared to 4/3.
> Strictly speaking that means FOR THE SAME SHOT there will be 4 TIMES LESS light on the FF sensor than it was with 4/3 . Not 4 times more
> To compensate for this lack of light, the FF camera cranks up the ISO (or sensitivity) by two stops to extract four times more of the light that fell on the sensor, compared to what  4/3 camera did, and in the end ensure similar exposure.
> But then , what is the problem? The FF high ISO performance is great..
Click to expand...

You should watch Tony's video, it will explain to you where you are wrong.
f1.4 on MFT with their existing lenses isn't really f1.4


----------



## Gary A.

goodguy said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless Journey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
> If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can also put it this way:
> Let's say  you shoot a particular scene with both 4/3 and FF and you want a particular DoF and shutter speed (surprise,surprise)
> With 4/3, let's say, you are using 1.2 aperture and 1/100 shutter speed
> With FF camera, for the same scene you keep the same shutter speed, but need to stop down the aperture, because otherwise DoF will be way too shallow.  So you stop it down by two stops compared to 4/3.
> Strictly speaking that means FOR THE SAME SHOT there will be 4 TIMES LESS light on the FF sensor than it was with 4/3 . Not 4 times more
> To compensate for this lack of light, the FF camera cranks up the ISO (or sensitivity) by two stops to extract four times more of the light that fell on the sensor, compared to what  4/3 camera did, and in the end ensure similar exposure.
> But then , what is the problem? The FF high ISO performance is great..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should watch Tony's video, it will explain to you where you are wrong.
> f1.4 on MFT with their existing lenses isn't really f1.4
Click to expand...

I watched Tony's video. Baloney. Tony is quite the convincing salesman.

He is saying, what we all know to be true, is that generally, sensors, (regardless of size), will have better noise at a lower ISO. And yes there is math behind that, but he twisted the explanation of the math to support his statements. And Tony completely ignore differences in sensor technology and he assumed that all sensors are equal. To avoid getting into details ... think of this ... Tony's bucket theory. Tony said that a bucket with twice the diameter, (Tony said size but it is actually diameter), will gather twice as much rain, all else being equal. That is true. What he selectively omitted that if the bucket is a sensor ... then somewhere in the buckets is a line which represents a proper exposure. Lets say that line is three inches from the bottom of the buckets. All else being equal, (each bucket getting the same amount of rain over the same time period), both buckets will hit that mark at the same time.

What I am trying to say is that a smaller bucket, like a smaller sensor, doesn't not need the same amount of "total" light to make a proper exposure (to hit the mark). It may need more light in order to get a higher S:N, which in turn will lower noise. Remember, lowering noise is different than a proper exposure. I am discussing proper exposure and you're, per Tony's video, discussing noise.


----------



## Didereaux

"My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
Thanks!"

First off real photographers don't ditch one system for another.  Each system has its pros and cons.  Right now the mirror-less has size and weight going for it (but a small lens library).  Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income.   I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system.  Almost all even have little PS's they carry along.   So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system, or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks.  Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, but if you stop and think about it what I jsut wrote pretty well describes the reality of the situation as it is today with respect to mirror-less cameras.


----------



## Gary A.

Didereaux said:


> "My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
> Thanks!"
> 
> First off real photographers don't ditch one system for another.  Each system has its pros and cons.  Right now the mirror-less has size and weight going for it (but a small lens library).  Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income.   I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system.  Almost all even have little PS's they carry along.   So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system, or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks.  Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, but if you stop and think about it what I jsut wrote pretty well describes the reality of the situation as it is today with respect to mirror-less cameras.



To address your, less than courteous, remarks:

I used to be a news photographer, a photo journalist ... a pro. I know how professional photographers, especially those in my genre operate and work. I shot Nikon professionally in the '60's, '70's and 80's. I hope most would qualify me as a 'real' photographer.

Presently, I have three complete systems. A FF system (1Ds), an APS-C system (mirrorless Fuji) and a MFT system (Oly EM1). I haven't touched my FF system in a couple of years. I've been slowly giving it away to my kids. The latest system is the Fuji APS-C syste, I love the Fuji. The cameras and lenses are great and the IQ from the X-Trans sensor, to my eye is very film-esque. MFT is very digital-ish and the Canon FF is somewhere in-between. But these differences are subtle.

Again, presently, I am a hobbyist. I still shoot for publication but most of those 'assignments' are performed pro bono. I, like many _pro photogs, _also had a smaller camera for fun. I was using a GF1 as my fun camera. After a bit I realized that many of my MFT lens were as sharp as my L lenses. I also realized that up to an 8x10+, there wasn't any significant differences in IQ between my FF and MFT (for what and how I shoot). Oly came out with the EM5 which had a significantly improved sensor and vastly superior performance and handling over my GF1. While, as a former pro, size and weight doesn't matter in photography ... all that matters is the final image. I appreciated the little bodies, lenses and diminished weight. (I remembered when Olympus initially marketed the OM1. It was this great little film camera that was dwarfed by our Nikons. Oly dropped off palettes of equipment to major newspapers and wire services. We all snatched them up and used them for about three to four months .. then they started breaking so we went back to Nikon.) The EM5 pretty much replaced my 1Ds. 

One day I was in my camera store and I spotted a Fujifilm X-Pro1. It was absolutely beautiful and sexy and it felt so good ... and I bought it. I just wanted to walk around with this sexy little number hanging around my neck. After I look at the images, I was blown away. The Fuji images were amazingly good. The XP1 was a bit larger than the EM5 and did everything slower than the EM5, but it was such a good looking camera with such good looking output that I adapted my shooting style to accommodate the sexy camera with lenses that were at least as good as L and quite often better. So now I'm shooting APS-C mirrorless with slow AF but wonderful IQ. Fuji came out with the XT1, about the same size as MFT (EM1) but sports a significantly superior sensor. The handling is easier because it has a very simple menu system, dials on top for shutter/ISO/Exp Comp/meter/et al. The AF is super fast, but cannot track, write speed can use UHSII and the EVF at under 8FPS and decent light is nearly seamless.

System wise, MFT is way ahead of Fuji, (as it is a more mature system). But Fuji is getting there. I will still shoot MFT solely because of the longer and faster lenses available for MFT over Fuji. 

That is essentially my migration to mirrorless. So yeah, the "reality" is my migration is purely so I can be a big shot at Starbucks.

Gary


----------



## Didereaux

Gary A. said:


> hat"Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
> Thanks!"
> 
> First off real photographers don't ditch one system for another.  Each system has its pros and cons.  Right now the mirror-less has size and weight going for it (but a small lens library).  Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income.   I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system.  Almost all even have little PS's they carry along.   So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system, or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks.  Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, but if you stop and think about it what I jsut wrote pretty well describes the reality of the situation as it is today with respect to mirror-less cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To address your, less than courteous, remarks:
> 
> I used to be a news photographer, a photo journalist ... a pro. I know how professional photographers, especially those in my genre operate and work. I shot Nikon professionally in the '60's, '70's and 80's. I hope most would qualify me as a 'real' photographer.
> 
> Presently, I have three complete systems. A FF system (1Ds), an APS-C system (mirrorless Fuji) and a MFT system (Oly EM1). I haven't touched my FF system in a couple of years. I've been slowly giving it away to my kids. The latest system is the Fuji APS-C syste, I love the Fuji. The cameras and lenses are great and the IQ from the X-Trans sensor, to my eye is very film-esque. MFT is very digital-ish and the Canon FF is somewhere in-between. But these differences are subtle.
> 
> ....
> Gary
Click to expand...


You marked my comment disagree.  Yet in your reply you openly admit to owning and using several systems.  That was my point!!!  One system doesn't do it all.  As for 'less than considerate' that is subjective.  I did not attack the OP, that I was not particularly admiring of one segment of the population, well I doubt you love them all either.   Again I point out that the gist of your reply sustained my conclusions.


----------



## Gary A.

Didereaux said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hat"Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
> Thanks!"
> 
> First off real photographers don't ditch one system for another.  Each system has its pros and cons.  Right now the mirror-less has size and weight going for it (but a small lens library).  Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income.   I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system.  Almost all even have little PS's they carry along.   So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system, or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks.  Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, but if you stop and think about it what I jsut wrote pretty well describes the reality of the situation as it is today with respect to mirror-less cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To address your, less than courteous, remarks:
> 
> I used to be a news photographer, a photo journalist ... a pro. I know how professional photographers, especially those in my genre operate and work. I shot Nikon professionally in the '60's, '70's and 80's. I hope most would qualify me as a 'real' photographer.
> 
> Presently, I have three complete systems. A FF system (1Ds), an APS-C system (mirrorless Fuji) and a MFT system (Oly EM1). I haven't touched my FF system in a couple of years. I've been slowly giving it away to my kids. The latest system is the Fuji APS-C syste, I love the Fuji. The cameras and lenses are great and the IQ from the X-Trans sensor, to my eye is very film-esque. MFT is very digital-ish and the Canon FF is somewhere in-between. But these differences are subtle.
> 
> ....
> Gary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You marked my comment disagree.  Yet in your reply you openly admit to owning and using several systems.  That was my point!!!  One system doesn't do it all.  As for 'less than considerate' that is subjective.  I did not attack the OP, that I was not particularly admiring of one segment of the population, well I doubt you love them all either.   Again I point out that the gist of your reply sustained my conclusions.
Click to expand...


I did not mark your comments with a 'Disagree". You are wrong on that count. Interestingly, possibly as a retort you marked 'Disagree' with my migration story. An action I cannot fathom, as how can one disagree with a story of my migration from FF to mirrorless ... it is my story of my migration. I can only assume your marking of 'Disagree', as the act of a small minded and negative person.

While a "small lenses library" is subjective, I think you may be the only person familiar with MFT that would call MFT lenses collectively a small library.

Your comments, in my subjective opinion, of "real photographers" is very condescending and arrogant.

Your comment of "Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income." , is negative, condescending/arrogant and possibly not true.how do you know that "all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income"? (I won't comment on the improper use of the English language as English may not be your mother tongue.)

"I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system." While this may be true, but the significance of this remark is dependant upon the greater audience/forum membership understanding the size of your "pros" universe. Without that knowledge, your statement has no merit.

"So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system," ... that is actually statement which is important and requires consideration. (Unlike your other statements.) But then you finished with "...or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks. " Again, condescending and arrogance on your part.

"Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, ..." Again, subjective, I prefer negative, condescending and arrogant to be better descriptors.

Gary


----------



## Didereaux

Gary, I have the solution.  Put me on ignore.  I notice you have posted 6000+ comments in 2 months,  amazing!  And only a member for two months as well.  Incredible!   Btw I put you on ignore as well.  I am not on the internet, and particularly this forum, to go 'trolling', which entails the sort of conversations we just engaged in.


----------



## Holejee

Didereaux: you do come off as condescending, FWIW.


----------

