# Thom Hogan: Why Mirrorless ?



## Solarflare

Why Do People Really Buy Mirrorless Cameras Sans Mirror mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras Thom Hogan

In general, that article is simply brilliant. Says many things that I havent really thought through myself, and thinking them to the logical end. But I would like to add that I want mirrorless also because:

- Not only is the focus system more reliable (since it needs no calibration), I also can focus in a larger area of the picture.

- Wide angle lenses can be much more simple, provided the sensor can manage more steep angles in the incoming light, allowing to create higher quality optics. Since wide angles are usually of lower optical quality than narrow/long angles, this is a big deal. Additionally, these wide angles are also more compact.

- I do NOT want mirrorless because the camera gets smaller. The only way mirrorless REALLY gets smaller is if the sensor is smaller, too, and I dont want that because I crave lowlight performance and I like Bokeh.

But yes, the arguments mentioned in the article are true as well.


----------



## Usul

The only reason I don't like mirrorles is EVF. It doesn't matter how many K has my TV sometimes I prefer to look through the window.


----------



## Jasii

Off for a good read. TFS.


----------



## sashbar

Solarflare said:


> . The only way mirrorless REALLY gets smaller is if the sensor is smaller, too, and I dont want that because I crave lowlight performance and I like Bokeh.



Yes, Sony a7 is MUCH smaller than Nikon D800 because its sensor is sma...  or, wait a second..  
FUJI x-E1 is MUCH smaller than Nikon D7200 because the sensor.. oh, wait again..


----------



## Jasii

Off for a good read. TFS.


----------



## Solarflare

sashbar said:


> Yes, Sony a7 is MUCH smaller than Nikon D800 because its sensor is sma...  or, wait a second..
> FUJI x-E1 is MUCH smaller than Nikon D7200 because the sensor.. oh, wait again..


 Oh, the camera bodies themselves lose the mirror box and the parts above (pentaprism) and below (AF sensor ). But the lenses dont get much smaller, especially not the telephoto lenses. The wide angles might shrink, depending upon how well the sensor can handle steep angles of light.


----------



## panzerbjorne

Solarflare said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Sony a7 is MUCH smaller than Nikon D800 because its sensor is sma...  or, wait a second..
> FUJI x-E1 is MUCH smaller than Nikon D7200 because the sensor.. oh, wait again..
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the camera bodies themselves lose the mirror box and the parts above (pentaprism) and below (AF sensor ). But the lenses dont get much smaller, especially not the telephoto lenses. The wide angles might shrink, depending upon how well the sensor can handle steep angles of light.
Click to expand...


That sentiment is the only part of the analysis I don't agree with. Lenses are smaller. And not because of a compromise of image quality.

Look at the equivalent of Sony\CZ 55/1.8 and 28/2.8 in the Canin world and you'll know what I mean. It's not as dramatic a difference as that between the bodies but it's there. For a three prime, flash and body kit, the difference is massive. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Solarflare

As I said - with wide angles they can actually shrink, even for a sensor of identical size, because they no longer have to be retrofocus. Or less retrofocus.

Limited by how steep angles of light the sensor can handle.

So the Leica M and the Sony A7s apparently are pretty much unlimited with using old glas made for film, while for example Sony A7 and even more A7r get into trouble quite quickly and any lens below 28mm will probably end up having issues.

I havent read anywhere yet how A7ii and A7rii are doing. I would assume though that A7rii does pretty well, thanks to the fact that its a backlit sensor.


----------



## willard3

I purchased a mirrorless specifically for the weight/size advantage. I travel a lot and don't want to be an equipment burro.

It is way smaller/lighter than a slr and so are its lenses.


----------



## DarkShadow

All this Mirrorless talk,I guess I have to break out my Samsung NX300 charge it up and start shooting it.I bought it new and only shot it twice in the winter.The no viewfinder is a killer in bright light,I can't see chit on the display to frame,focus and shoot.Even came with a little mini shoe mount flash that is suprisingly powerful for how small it is.


----------



## Ysarex

I made the switch 1.5 years ago and I'm very happy overall with the change. My primary reason for the change was to reduce size and weight which I did dramatically (over 50%) but I also upgraded from FF to APS in the process which was a big contributing factor. I traded a 5DmkII for a Fuji XE-2.

Biggest regret and adjustment was the OVF to EVF switch. I would very much prefer my old OVF back. One reason for that is the very reason Mr. Hogan suggests some people switch. The EVF is polluted by the camera manufacturer's JPEG rendering of the scene. When I'm trying to attend to the task of taking *my photo* I don't need to be distracted by having the camera software botch job shoved in my face.

But EVF is the required price to be rid of the mirror cage and overall I consider it a very positive swap. I've adjusted well enough to the EVF and the additional benefits all tip the scale for me.

My 2nd reason for switching is nearly as important as the first. Over 40 years of working in photo I've always been partial to wide angle lenses and long before the advent of digital I learned about the performance hit paid to push a wide angle lens out in front of an SLR mirror. For that reason when I shot film I was partial to rangefinders over SLRs and fondly remember shooting lenses like my 47mm Super Angulon and 58mm Grandagon. As noted by Mr. Hogan and Solarflare, mirrorless meant I could once again work with superb wide angle lenses. I was aware of Fuji's XF 14mm lens and when I bought my XE-2 that lens was part of the package. That alone now makes the whole switch worth it to me. The Fuji XF 14mm has an 81 degree angle of view on my XE-2 and is effectively distortion free. That simply isn't possible with a DSLR. Here's an example:




 

Not an iota of distortion adjustment has been applied to that photo -- all I did was adjust perspective. It really feels good to be able to use a world-class optic like that.

The same advantage that allows superb wide angle lenses has another benefit that I also considered when I made the switch. With the mirror gone the sensor to flange distance is reduced and that means you can get an adapter to mount just about anything on the camera. It's harder and often impossible to do the same with a DSLR as the flange distance may be too great.

So shortly after I bought the XE-2 I bought a helical adapter for $40.00 and mounted my old 60mm Rodagon enlarging lens to the camera. I use it for close up and macro work. Enlarging lenses make superb macro lenses and I had one sitting in a drawer. You can buy a used 50mm EL-Nikkor on ebay for $30.00. Here's a shot using my old enlarging lens:



 

And there's another big advantage to mirrorless that Mr. Hogan mentioned. Because the EVF is a live view from the sensor it's possible to implement precision magnified focus peaking. This is where that can really matter: closeups. That rose photo is critically in focus where I put it -- auto focus and/or a DSLR OVF manual focus are not nearly as effective.

The AF issue I believe is still real for people who shoot sports and wildlife with long lenses, not my experience so I can't speak to that directly.

I'm very happy with the switch and I wouldn't switch back.

Joe


----------



## beagle100

Ysarex said:


> I made the switch 1.5 years ago and I'm very happy overall with the change. My primary reason for the change was to reduce size and weight which I did dramatically (over 50%) but I also upgraded from FF to APS in the process which was a big contributing factor. I traded a 5DmkII for a Fuji XE-2.
> 
> Biggest regret and adjustment was the OVF to EVF switch. I would very much prefer my old OVF back. One reason for that is the very reason Mr. Hogan suggests some people switch. The EVF is polluted by the camera manufacturer's JPEG rendering of the scene. When I'm trying to attend to the task of taking *my photo* I don't need to be distracted by having the camera software botch job shoved in my face.
> 
> But EVF is the required price to be rid of the mirror cage and overall I consider it a very positive swap. I've adjusted well enough to the EVF and the additional benefits all tip the scale for me.
> 
> My 2nd reason for switching is nearly as important as the first. Over 40 years of working in photo I've always been partial to wide angle lenses and long before the advent of digital I learned about the performance hit paid to push a wide angle lens out in front of an SLR mirror. For that reason when I shot film I was partial to rangefinders over SLRs and fondly remember shooting lenses like my 47mm Super Angulon and 58mm Grandagon. As noted by Mr. Hogan and Solarflare, mirrorless meant I could once again work with superb wide angle lenses. I was aware of Fuji's XF 14mm lens and when I bought my XE-2 that lens was part of the package. That alone now makes the whole switch worth it to me. The Fuji XF 14mm has an 81 degree angle of view on my XE-2 and is effectively distortion free. That simply isn't possible with a DSLR. Here's an example:
> 
> [
> Not an iota of distortion adjustment has been applied to that photo -- all I did was adjust perspective. It really feels good to be able to use a world-class optic like that.
> 
> The same advantage that allows superb wide angle lenses has another benefit that I also considered when I made the switch. With the mirror gone the sensor to flange distance is reduced and that means you can get an adapter to mount just about anything on the camera. It's harder and often impossible to do the same with a DSLR as the flange distance may be too great.
> 
> So shortly after I bought the XE-2 I bought a helical adapter for $40.00 and mounted my old 60mm Rodagon enlarging lens to the camera. I use it for close up and macro work. Enlarging lenses make superb macro lenses and I had one sitting in a drawer. You can buy a used 50mm EL-Nikkor on ebay for $30.00. Here's a shot using my old enlarging lens:
> 
> 
> And there's another big advantage to mirrorless that Mr. Hogan mentioned. Because the EVF is a live view from the sensor it's possible to implement precision magnified focus peaking. This is where that can really matter: closeups. That rose photo is critically in focus where I put it -- auto focus and/or a DSLR OVF manual focus are not nearly as effective.
> 
> The AF issue I believe is still real for people who shoot sports and wildlife with long lenses, not my experience so I can't speak to that directly.
> 
> I'm very happy with the switch and I wouldn't switch back.
> 
> Joe




I agree, it's brilliantly simple, make the switch to "world class" mirrorless optics and never look back




Untitled by c w, on Flickr


----------



## floatingby

Ultimately, everybody has their own reasons for what equipment they chose to use. 

My primary reason for purchasing the Fuji X-e2 was the layout of the control: speed via a marked dial on top of the body, aperture on the lens, auto mode marked by a bold, red "A" on each of those dial; simple and fast, and none of those stupidly awful "modes" that you need to go through a 300 pages manual to begin to understand.

But that is my primary reason, which, I'm sure, won't be everybody's.


----------



## Gary A.

I purchased my X-Pro1 because it was a very sexy camera. It bought it based purely on looks. (Yes, I am that shallow.)


----------



## beagle100

Gary A. said:


> I purchased my X-Pro1 because it was a very sexy camera. It bought it based purely on looks. (Yes, I am that shallow.)



looks count


----------



## Peeb

Good read


----------



## Solarflare

beagle100 said:


> looks count


 Definitely.

Beautiful cameras like most recently the Leica Q definitely get an extra bonus of interest with me, too.

Maybe its "shallow" but why have an ugly camera if the beautiful camera is just as good, but also beautiful ?


----------



## PropilotBW

I travel for a living.  Size matters.  I upgraded to Mirrorless with the E-M5II from the Nikon D5100 due to size, mostly of the lenses I had along with the Nikon.   
I got the M Zuiko 12-40 f2.8 as my first lens. It is definitely the nicest lens I've ever owned.  
The one thing I do miss is low ISO.  My camera regularly wants to be at 1000 ISO, where I would have taken the same photo on the D5100 at 200 or 400 ISO.    I suppose the only time I notice this is with bird photography and heavy cropping.


----------



## Solarflare

PropilotBW said:


> The one thing I do miss is low ISO.  My camera regularly wants to be at 1000 ISO, where I would have taken the same photo on the D5100 at 200 or 400 ISO.    I suppose the only time I notice this is with bird photography and heavy cropping.


 The only way I can think of that gives you lower ISO on the D5100 is if you use the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC zoom, or prime lenses.

There are pricey manual f0.95 lenses for MFT though. Best you can get for Nikon is f1.4, or f1.8 with manual focus.


----------



## Benjo255

Usul said:


> The only reason I don't like mirrorles is EVF.


That's the main reason I couldn't go back to DSLR.


----------

