# I’m with Thom Hogan



## JTPhotography (Nov 6, 2018)

D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.


----------



## D7K (Nov 6, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.



Being a D850 shooter, I'm kind of biased, but I'll agree


----------



## cgw (Nov 6, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.



Feel better now?


----------



## Jeff15 (Nov 6, 2018)

Its all a matter of opinion.......


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 6, 2018)

Yes, supported by overwhelming facts and data.


----------



## Overread (Nov 6, 2018)

Mirrorless is just the new fad in my view. 

It does make sense for those who are buying smaller sensor mirrorless cameras as they offer you the convenience of a point and shoot with the features, interchangeable lens and controls of a DSLR. Where they are not doing fullframe mirrorless I start to see less and less reason to consider them a viable option as the mirrorless system means that sure you save on the mirrorbox; but that's really all its got going for it. You have reduced battery performance due to the need to run live-view all the time; you've reduced feedback through the viewfinder for any action or fast panning; you've not really saved on weight much because the lens has to cover the same sensor size as a regular DSLR for fullframe*.

Personally I still want a mirrorless, but one with a smaller sensor so that it makes sense as a lighter pocket camera with controls/features/interface I'm more used too. I don't see any reason to swap a regular DSLR for a mirrorless of the same sensorsize and performance. 


*Honestly any weight saving going on there I wager is either smaller maximum apertures and/or general weight saving through new technologies that would happen for the next version of a regular DSLR lens of the same focal length anyway


----------



## goooner (Nov 6, 2018)

Agree with overread, I was wowed by the A9 when shooting with it at a sales evening. But was equally wowed by the D5 when I had 2 hours with it at a sporting event. For the same money, I would probably get the D5.


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 6, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.



Well if he said it, it must be true. Seriously though, does it really matter?


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Nov 6, 2018)

Overread said:


> Mirrorless is just the new fad in my view.
> 
> It does make sense for those who are buying smaller sensor mirrorless cameras as they offer you the convenience of a point and shoot with the features, interchangeable lens and controls of a DSLR. Where they are not doing fullframe mirrorless I start to see less and less reason to consider them a viable option as the mirrorless system means that sure you save on the mirrorbox; but that's really all its got going for it. You have reduced battery performance due to the need to run live-view all the time; you've reduced feedback through the viewfinder for any action or fast panning; you've not really saved on weight much because the lens has to cover the same sensor size as a regular DSLR for fullframe*.
> 
> ...



I think the key phrase you used was, “swap a regular DSLR for a mirrorless”. I think it’s gotten to the point to where these systems are very comparable. Can you really say that the D850 has something so much better than a *fill in your favorite full frame body* that it would warrant the swap (new lenses/accessories)?

@dustin decided it was worthwhile to make the swap (I think he went from a D800 to an XT3 correct me if I’m wrong). He may have a good opinion since he actually made the move.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 6, 2018)

I bought a Sony A6000 when they came out.  I have the 16-55 and 55-200 lens for it and they work great.  I mostly use it  for travel and it is perfect for that.  The A6000 is about as mirrorless as I plan on getting.


----------



## cgw (Nov 6, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.



 BTW, do you own and shoot enough samples of each group to validate Tom's "findings?" Just asking...


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 6, 2018)

This is, imo, a silly pixel-peeper discussion. discussion.
One uses the best one likes and wants to or can afford to make images.
Once past a certain point, and all modern cameras are past that point, it is much more the skill and artistic insight of the photographer that makes a difference rather than the mostly trivial difference between bodies.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Nov 8, 2018)

I prefer my F5.


----------



## n614cd (Nov 8, 2018)

Overread said:


> Mirrorless is just the new fad in my view.
> 
> It does make sense for those who are buying smaller sensor mirrorless cameras as they offer you the convenience of a point and shoot with the features, interchangeable lens and controls of a DSLR. Where they are not doing fullframe mirrorless I start to see less and less reason to consider them a viable option as the mirrorless system means that sure you save on the mirrorbox; but that's really all its got going for it. You have reduced battery performance due to the need to run live-view all the time; you've reduced feedback through the viewfinder for any action or fast panning; you've not really saved on weight much because the lens has to cover the same sensor size as a regular DSLR for fullframe*.
> 
> ...



The mirror box is the smallest piece of the puzzle. The real difference is the distance from the sensor to the lens. Cannon went from 44mm to 20mm. Per the Sigma CEO, and many others this will offer a radically new capability in lenses. The largest change is they will be able to make faster and larger aperture lenses significantly easier, or previously impossible. 

A secondary effect, is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) which lowers the technical skills required; therefore makes it easier for people who are more art centered to utilize the camera capabilities, and for the generally less talented (e.g. me) better able to see what we have composed and depend less on our fragile memories/imagination.

Tim


----------



## waday (Nov 8, 2018)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless is just the new fad in my view.
> ...


I agree.. I would think it'd probably be more of a slow progression towards mirrorless in general; I wouldn't necessarily expect people to drop everything to move to mirrorless. (Of course, I'm assuming there will be a few tech savvy people that will do that...)


----------



## jaomul (Nov 8, 2018)

I like Thom Hogans site but he did tell me my d5600 and 50mm f1.8 were crap so now I gotta look at all my photos taken with these items and delete them all 

Seriously though these cams, mirrorless or not are only better or worse than each other based on requirements by the individual. If you don't need a smaller camera than a dslr then you don't necessarily need to buy a mirrorless (and really other than enthusiast interest should we really care if a cam has a mirror or not once the manufacturer has eliminated any mirror blur issues)

The 2 types are becoming closer and closer to spec, you can have a dslr that dos great live view and video (canon dual pixel models) and now we seem to be getting to a place where the non mirrored cams can do autofocus tracking (fuji xt3 and sony a9 and others)

As for real life difference in image quality between a d850 and z7, I'd imagine other than review sites and the like, one would want to be very pedantic to choose one over the other based on that alone, I'm sure 2 creative photographers one with each model could take photos with them that were almost impossible to say which cam by anyone unless the exif was shown


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 9, 2018)

cgw said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 9, 2018)

The_Traveler said:


> This is, imo, a silly pixel-peeper discussion. discussion.
> One uses the best one likes and wants to or can afford to make images.
> Once past a certain point, and all modern cameras are past that point, it is much more the skill and artistic insight of the photographer that makes a difference rather than the mostly trivial difference between bodies.



Totally disagree.


----------



## cgw (Nov 9, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...



Like what you like but don’t pass it off as evidence-based, especially when you've shared none.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 9, 2018)

I liked the form factor, and IQ out of my a6000, but I hated missing focus due to a focusing method that is inferior to SLR -- am I'm talking easy easy easy shots with the focus point on a static subject.

If manufacturers were smart, they'd combine the best of both worlds...


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Nov 9, 2018)

Braineack said:


> I liked the form factor, and IQ out of my a6000, but I hated missing focus due to a focusing method that is inferior to SLR -- am I'm talking easy easy easy shots with the focus point on a static subject.
> 
> If manufacturers were smart, they'd combine the best of both worlds...



I think that’s what @jaomul was getting at; they are getting closer to that best of both worlds camera.


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 10, 2018)

cgw said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...



It is evidence based, google search it. You will he busy for hours and hours reading about how right I am.


----------



## waday (Nov 10, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not others...


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 11, 2018)

waday said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...



Do you doubt me? Or are you just trying to divert because you don't shoot Nikon?


----------



## waday (Nov 11, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


I’m trying to see what basis you have for you claim. As a person in science and engineering, I typically don’t accept personal statements and other anecdotes as fact.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 11, 2018)

n614cd said:
			
		

> The mirror box is the smallest piece of the puzzle. The real difference is the distance from the sensor to the lens. Cannon went from 44mm to 20mm. Per the Sigma CEO, and many others this will offer a radically new capability in lenses. The largest change is they will be able to make faster and larger aperture lenses significantly easier, or previously impossible.
> 
> A secondary effect, is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) which lowers the technical skills required; therefore makes it easier for people who are more art centered to utilize the camera capabilities, and for the generally less talented (e.g. me) better able to see what we have composed and depend less on our fragile memories/imagination.
> 
> Tim



Yeah..the ONE thing I am interested in seeing is the way the NEW Nikon lens mount affects lens design and lens performance.

See Ming Thein's comments on how well the new 24-70mm f/4 Z-mount lens performed on the Nikon Z7. Full review: The 2018 Nikon Z7 and Z 24-70/4

"We have a new, wide-diameter, ultra short flange mount to enable much faster lenses, easy adaptation and higher image quality: a wider throat means a larger exit pupil and better telecentricity, and more compact lens designs since a rear correction group isn’t required. There’s also a sealed FTZ adaptor that delivers full functionality with existing lenses – and a tripod mount, for better balance. It works as advertised, but perhaps there was a missed opportunity to include additional controls or filters like Canon (probably patented)."

And NOW, here is the part that has me interested in what the NEW Z-mount might offer!

"
I have the Z 24-70/4 (being the only one available and of interest to me so far); construction is sturdy but mostly plastic (with some sticktion to the action), but the same applies to my trusty [24-120/4] and that hasn’t let me down yet. There are two remarkable things about this lens: firstly, the collapsed size is tiny: it’s the same size as the primes, or say an 85/1.8. The second thing is it’s neutrality: it isn’t crazy sharp like an Otus, but it isn’t soft, either; microcontrast is middling; macrocontrast is middle to high, and it’s slightly better stopped down (peaking somewhere between f5.6 and f8). It definitely matches the resolution of the sensor. But what’s amazing is its consistency across the focal range, most focal distances and across the frame, even into the extreme corners. Remember: this isn’t a prime; it’s a collapsing compact wide-to-portrait zoom, with very short back flange distance.

This is the first time I’ve seen this kind of behaviour in a zoom: normally there’s an obvious resolution peak in the middle, with the edges only catching up a couple of stops down. Furthermore, chromatic aberration (both longitudinal and lateral) and flare are almost zero. You really have to get something very bright in the frame at wide to see even slight ghosts. This is solid evidence of the performance improvements that come from a larger mount, larger exit pupil (32mm!) and higher telecentricity. On top of that, focus is completely silent and nearly instant, and you have the benefit of a very short 30cm minimum distance from the focal plane at all focal lengths. There is some degredation in resolution close up, but it was never designed to be a macro. Bokeh is smooth and highlights are circular, with little evidence of onion rings, hot edges or corner cat-eyeing."
**************

So, there's that...an all-new lens mount that offers more telecentricity; something Olympus understood when they got into the m4/3 camera biz, and made some of the finest-performing zooms that were *designed-especially-for-digitial-camera-use. *The new 24-70mm lens offers very good performance, all the way across the frame, and all the way across the focal length range, even into the extreme corners. As Ming writes, "his is the first time I’ve seen this kind of behaviour in a zoom," and he notes that this zoom matches the 47-MP sensor's capability. Also, no flare, and no CA. All this, from a compact, collapsible, affordable zoom lens!


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 11, 2018)

waday said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > waday said:
> ...



If I told you the earth revolves around the sun, would I have to provide documentation?


----------



## waday (Nov 11, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


So you have none (basis for your claim)? Cool.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Nov 11, 2018)

Ah put yer purses down and take it to PM.


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 11, 2018)

waday said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > waday said:
> ...



Sorry that you don’t own a Nikon D850.

https://petapixel.com/2017/09/13/nikon-d850s-dynamic-range-stacks-rival-cameras/

The Nikon D850 has the best sensor ever, according to DxOMark

Are DSLRs Still The Best Choice? | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 11, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> Sorry that you don’t own a Nikon D850.



Nope. I'll stay with my K1MII Nikon D850 vs Pentax K-1 II Detailed Comparison and use the $1400 difference to buy glass. I've been with Pentax since the late 60's and I see no reason to change. FYI Pentax came out with a mirroless (K-01) in 2012 that was backward compatible with all Pentax bayonet mount lenses and from what I understand was of decent quality sharing the same sensor as the D7000. It was discontinued because of lack of interest in a mirrorless a year later.


----------



## cmrotell (Nov 13, 2018)

I've recently attended a seminar where both Nikon Reps and a Fuji Pro Photographer were talking about the new mirrorless cameras. None of them really mentioned the equipment was far superior to current DSLRs and arguments could be made they are not. What did get brought up and what is interesting to me was some of the features mirrorless had over current bodies. Those primarily being focus stacking and pre-burst shooting.

Photo Stacking is where the camera will take a series of photos at different distances and combine them within the body to create an image that is in focus from front to back. You can do this in current bodies but much more time consuming vs the mirrorless press button wait and a photo is produced. No post process work.

Pre Burst is where the camera is already taking pictures as you have the button half depressed placing them into the buffer memory. Once you fully depress the button it will include those images that were in the buffer. This allows you to capture moments that may be quicker than the eye.  The example that was used was capturing a snake with its tongue out.


----------



## snowbear (Nov 13, 2018)

These sound like features that could be added to a DSLR when used in "Live Mode."


----------



## cmrotell (Nov 13, 2018)

Ye


snowbear said:


> These sound like features that could be added to a DSLR when used in "Live Mode."


I asked that question to the Nikon Rep. His response to the entire room was "this guy thinks that Nikon is going to give these features up for free when they can sell it." I did loose a little love for Nikon in that moment.


----------



## snowbear (Nov 13, 2018)

I'm sure Canon would have the same general response.


----------



## waday (Nov 13, 2018)

snowbear said:


> I'm sure Canon would have the same general response.


I think most companies would have the same response, but hopefully they wouldn't be so aggressive with the response...


----------



## cmrotell (Nov 13, 2018)

waday said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure Canon would have the same general response.
> ...



Untrue, Olympus and Sony are very good at updating the firmware on their older models.

With more "Tech" companies entering this arena, Nikon and Canon better watch out for their stance on this and reconsider their stance on this old mentality as the younger generation does expect more upgrades vs having to purchase new all the time. Look at how Xbox, PlayStation, Microsoft Windows, even Adobe moving to either a subscription plan model, free upgrades, and continuing to support or refresh older models as an example.  Before anyone says they are too big or they will never lose customers, I bet the Sears executives 30 years ago would change their decision to not converting their catalog to a digital format if they knew what would become of Sears today.


----------



## waday (Nov 13, 2018)

cmrotell said:


> Untrue, Olympus and Sony are very good at updating the firmware on their older models.


Maybe we're talking different subjects. While they may update firmware, they may not necessarily provide those benefits in lower end (and older) models, even if they have the capability for the features...


----------



## Overread (Nov 13, 2018)

Camera companies like Canon and Nikon have grown up in the disposable age of commerce. Basically they are built on the idea that every so often you will buy an upgrade. Their whole business model is built off the back of that approach.

Now Adobe and software firms have the edge in that they don't have to invest in machines and production factories and can just digitally release updates so its much quicker, cheaper and easier for them to setup rolling updates. That said I do think that we will reach a point where Canon and Nikon have to consider updating firmwire in older models more readily and that the market might well slow down in general.

As customers we'd see this as fewer big hardware updates and higher prices on cameras, however we'd also see more software updates and firmwire features being added to select older models.

Thing is updating firmwire for products already out there is no money for camera companies (unless that firmwire comes with options to control new accessories). Furthermore I think a fair few software updates rely on specific hardware updates to actually work. So whilst they are sitll pumping out ever more improved sensors we can expect the hardware race to continue


----------



## Solarflare (Nov 20, 2018)

JTPhotography said:


> D850 and D500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.



Well ... I'm definitely never with Thom Hogan, no. That guy is wrong too often for that, even on central and important issues.

I'd say the Fujifilm X-T3 beats the D500 overall, fair and square.

On the other hand, the whole full frame mirrorless lineup is mostly simply just embarassing so far. All Canon and Nikon had was talk, while their offers are first generation junk. Whats much worse - so far there is no sign that neither Canon nor Nikon will take mirrorless serious in future.


----------



## n614cd (Nov 20, 2018)

Solarflare said:


> On the other hand, the whole full frame mirrorless lineup is mostly simply just embarassing so far. All Canon and Nikon had was talk, while their offers are first generation junk. Whats much worse - so far there is no sign that neither Canon nor Nikon will take mirrorless serious in future.



Why do you state this? Curious what you expected, and how it has not been met. Further, Canon and Nikon had to make the rather significant decision to change mounts, the first time in 30+ years for Canon and closer to 60 years for Nikon to make such a fundamental change.
Both companies have a history of making design decisions that have withstood the test of time for decades. Sony and Fuji have a history in many other industries of solutions that may last a decade.

Tim


----------



## Overread (Nov 20, 2018)

Sony and Fuji are rocking the boat more by releasing new and different designs because they are not as entrenched in the market. This means that no matter what they add they've likely got to build a new factory for it so they can go with something totally new because its the same net cost to get it in production. Whilst Canon and Nikon are old-hands and already have factories built so its an on-top investment for them to branch into totally new things.
In addition Sony and Fuji want a bigger slice of the pie, again this makes them more bold with going in new directions and experimenting and trying to offer something different to the big names, who won't necessarily need to push as hard because they've already secured major markets.

Sony also wanted to take a slice of the camera market pie which is why they invested a fortune in sensor development and research which got them ahead of the game for a bit. Again they wanted to move into this market so they had to make big and new waves to push out the competition and carve their own corner.


Also lets not forget that mirrorless is not replacing DSLRs and that mirrorless are not 100% improvements. They've got their benefits and negatives and, to my mind, compliment the DSLR market rather nicely.


----------



## n614cd (Nov 20, 2018)

Overread said:


> Sony and Fuji are rocking the boat more by releasing new and different designs because they are not as entrenched in the market. This means that no matter what they add they've likely got to build a new factory for it so they can go with something totally new because its the same net cost to get it in production. Whilst Canon and Nikon are old-hands and already have factories built so its an on-top investment for them to branch into totally new things.
> In addition Sony and Fuji want a bigger slice of the pie, again this makes them more bold with going in new directions and experimenting and trying to offer something different to the big names, who won't necessarily need to push as hard because they've already secured major markets.
> 
> Sony also wanted to take a slice of the camera market pie which is why they invested a fortune in sensor development and research which got them ahead of the game for a bit. Again they wanted to move into this market so they had to make big and new waves to push out the competition and carve their own corner.
> ...


What negatives besides battery life does mirrorless have? 

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread (Nov 20, 2018)

n614cd said:


> What negatives besides battery life does mirrorless have?
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk



Well there's a few:
1) Battery life - yep if you're running live view the whole time then the battery life is going to always be worse than the same battery technology in a comparable DSLR. This can be quite a significant aspect for people if they are shooting all day and can lead to a real world cost in requiring more spare batteries for extended shoots. 

2) Video lag - video is not "as" fast as the mirror screen when it comes to fast moving subjects, fast moving camera and very fine movements. The blurring it can render can also be different so panning and moving can be trickier to work with whilst with the mirror setup any blurring from fast movement is purely natural as your eye would see it. Whilst this is an area that will always steadily improve its still not quite there yet technology wise.

3) Bendy details in video. Because of the way most DSLR's read video from their sensors they read it in lines not in the whole screen at once. This leads to thinks like bending helicopter blades when they are moving fast and other similar oddities with fast moving subjects and situations. Again this has improved over time, but won't fully improve until the way sensors work - ergo when the camera reads data from the whole sensor in one go instead of line by line. 

4) Weight and size. This is more an issue for bigger lenses. Right now many mirrorless bodies are marketed on being smaller than DSLRs. Therefore they keep being small. Which is great if you're using small lenses on them; but if you've got yourself a fullframe mirrorless and now want to start putting 400mm lenses on the front you're going to start finding that the smaller and more compact body isn't as easily held against the body and the lighter weight makes the setup more likely to be front heavy. 

5) Balance. If you're using the screen on the back your balance and posture is already harmed. With a short lens its fine, but with bigger and heavier lenses you don't want the camera at arms length. Now you'll say but some mirrorless have viewfinders on them and that's true, but then you're not really saving much in space nor design over a traditional mirrorless setup (and on some the top side viewfinder is an extra attachment so comes with extra cost). 

6) Missed trick - this isn't really a negative nor a positive but a personal observation of mine. Cameras are TERRIBLE in terms of ergonomics. It's a hangover from when they had film inside that has never changed. It's still a flat rectangular box that you hold to your face (which even in many Asian countries, still has a very 3D profile and is not a flat surface). In my view the big missed trick was a chance to seriously step up the game in terms of camera ergonomics and design. Heck as you only need the sensor behind the camera there's no reason for the rest of the camera to need to be behind the lens itself. They could easily have made the whole camera more like a cradle design, letting you move the end of the lens back toward your shoulder and have a viewfinder slide out along half way. Again my  thoughts here are with bigger, heavier lenses, but even shorter ones would benefit from improved ergonomics and the freedom of design that is accorded with a liveview based camera. 


Now granted many of these are issues that will go away in time. Even battery life will go away once battery technology reaches a point where the difference in performance makes little real world meaning to most users. However right now I feel that these issues are still present for some users and we can see that big camera makers agree otherwise mirrorboxes would have vanished very fast. 

Of course with mirrorless you can do away with mirrorslap; with mechanical failure of components; with a shorter lens rear to sensor distance etc... There's loads of bonuses and for many situations the negatives are not an issue. For some they are and for sports, action, wildlife and such similar subjects these are legitimate concerns. I also wonder if astophotography also suffers in so much as it might result in increased unit heat because the whole time the sensor is recording its also outputting the liveview feed (thus running a whole series of additional components which can put up the heat and increase battery drain)


----------



## Solarflare (Nov 22, 2018)

n614cd said:


> Why do you state this?


Because thats the facts, and my opinion about it.





n614cd said:


> Canon and Nikon had to make the rather significant decision to change mounts


Nope, not even remotely.

They have started new camera systems. They did so in the past (Nikon One, Canon EOS-M).

Their SLR systems obviously will stay, since they keep releasing new stuff for them, and their new mirrorless systems are treated like toys by them so far, and theres no saying if that will ever change.


----------



## Solarflare (Nov 22, 2018)

n614cd said:


> What negatives besides battery life does mirrorless have?


EVFs have many issues - lag especially in low light, dazzling the user in low light, reduced resolution, reduced dynamic range, problems with artificial light, people with eye issues have trouble using EVFs at all, etc.

Autofocus in low light is still an issue. At least autofocus in decent light no longer is, at least with some companies.

Another substantial problem with all existing mirrorless systems is that many potential strengths arent actually implemented. Except for Fujifilm, really. Maybe also Olympus and Panasonic, I dont pay much attention to Micro Four Thirds.

Also of course many of the "advantages" of mirrorless people talk about are simply made up. For example the main reason mirrorless are smaller is because the sensor is smaller. If that is not the case, what you gain on the camera you lose again with the lens. Except for wide angle lenses, but even in that case not that much.

And no, mirrorless aint WYSIWYG. As a programmer I know exactly what WYSIWYG is and mirrorless aint it. I found out that people who claim otherwise actually have no clue what WYSIWYG even means. Yes of course mirrorless have more freedom to display information - but thats not what WYSIWYG is !


In the sum what I want is a SLR that can have an EVF enabled whenever the advantages of the EVF are needed, but usually the OVF because 99% of the time thats all I want.

For the same reason I want a fully articulated flipscreen because 99% of the time I dont need the backside monitor and I just want to turn it around so its fully protected.

I also want a SLR that can be permanently turned into lifeview mode, and that offers wide angle lenses that can only be used with the mirror permanently flipped up. This helps with wide angle lenses so for those having such a mode would be awesome.

Such a camera would offer the best of both worlds, with all the strengths of SLR and mirrorless combined.


----------



## Designer (Nov 22, 2018)

I won't be considering a FFM anytime soon.


----------



## greybeard (Dec 1, 2018)

Derrel said:


> n614cd said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, you have the Z6 or Z7?  How well does the 24-120 f/4 perform with the Z body and adapter compared to the z 24-70 f/4?


----------



## bribrius (Dec 4, 2018)

I get so confused on these conversations. Few things.
Most hardly print photos, those that do rarely go beyond a 8×10 print.
Almost all photos are edited. The differences between a $300 and $1000 camera could be fixed in editing.
When shooting film, people might go YEARS using the same camera. Not changing every two years.
People seem more worried about noise or iq than the content of the shot.
Vast majorities take photos of friends, family, which most any camera will do (and most of these will never see print).
My greatest kick is when someone spends a crap load on gear then sends a file to print to walmart photo lab....
How about paying for a 1000 dollar lens then softening it in post? Must be too sharp.
What are you shooting? What are you trying to accomplish? These are good basic questions..
Too much noise.,,,  how much comes out in the print?????
Noise reduction "oh i dont use it to get rid of noise i use it to soften the image".
People edit things to the point only half of the original shot even exists.,,,
Look at this great photo.. Of nothing., but check out the quality from my huge investment, in taking this photo of., well nothing.
Hey the new camera is out this month, who is buying?
Seriously, sometimes a $20 camera from a yard sale will do for many people....
Each camera, lens, will render somewhat differently (think of film) . It seems more about how you like the "look" of how it renders.     Will some of the newest models make shooting EASIER?  Of course. But then people complain about those that shoot in "auto".  Well i thought we were trying to make it easier?
My sensor sucks.. Okay dont shoot in low light or buy external flashes and lights.,  My sensor still sucks and i just upgraded, i think i need to again.  Really? How much money you making on a print???..
"But oh, i do this for a business".  Okay first of all that usually means they bring in little income and their business is subsidized by other work or a spouse. But okay, so you do it for a business, so lets see the balance sheet. You need to make money..
It is so hard to find a "meaningful" capture. And if you do i think the majority of any camera out there will suffice (including the $20 yard sale one) .
Few years ago i bought my kids $25 dollar cameras from walmart. I used one for kicks to do portraits on someones little girl. Granted, daylight. But the $25 camera put out near equal quality to my $1000 nikon.


.
Some serious b.s floating around out there..

Oh i have to add this. I was watching a documentary on prime video. This one guy self financed had his own gallery, was paying thousands to have is photos put on aluminum silver giant wall prints. Like real serious $$$$$$ invested. And i was looking at his photos watching this thinking "man, he doesnt even shoot very good photos. Okay. But not great."  Dropping 300k in a gallery and equipment and printing process didnt help them much...


----------



## greybeard (Dec 5, 2018)

bribrius said:


> I get so confused on these conversations. Few things.
> Most hardly print photos, those that do rarely go beyond a 8×10 print.
> Almost all photos are edited. The differences between a $300 and $1000 camera could be fixed in editing.
> When shooting film, people might go YEARS using the same camera. Not changing every two years.
> ...



I for one love cameras, I love buying new cameras and lenses, and I make no apologies for it.  I take lots of pictures with all of them.  My house is full of the ones I've had printed and I sell a few from time to time and post a lot on social media and on this and other forums.  If people want to pixel peep and buy the latest and greatest, more power to them.  If amatures want to discuss the merits of one system over another, that is what hobbyists and professionals do.


----------



## cgw (Dec 5, 2018)

More eggnog, anyone?


----------



## Chucktin (Dec 13, 2018)

I bought an X Pro-2 because I fell in love with Nikon, especially the Nikon SP while in School in the late 50s. Still have one copy. The Fuji is close but not a Nikon.
So currently I'm shooting a D850 for important "stuff" and the Fuji does stand in duty when I can't see donkeying around with a ton and a half camera and lenses.
What's all that mean? - I choose my weapons is all. YRMV.


----------



## gryffinwings (Dec 14, 2018)

This thread is the reason why I am taking a break from digital and got some film cameras, new gear is far too expensive. I picked up a Nikon FM for 30 and put in 83 for replacing seals. I also picked up a Nikkor 105mm f2.5 in nice condition for $220. I love the work flow and how it slows me down to think about how and what pictures I take.


----------



## Chucktin (Dec 17, 2018)

You could ignore the bells and whistles in a Digital body and go commando by using M (manual settings).
Let's face it. If you haven't chosen well when your finger twitches then no amount of postprocessing is going to get you back to that point in time period, film or digital. I keep wondering, how many exposure "experts" routinely exposure bracket and then present only the best image? I don't, but I'm a lazy SOB.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Dec 17, 2018)

Chucktin said:


> You could ignore the bells and whistles in a Digital body and go commando by using M (manual settings).
> Let's face it. If you haven't chosen well when your finger twitches then no amount of postprocessing is going to get you back to that point in time period, film or digital. I keep wondering, how many exposure "experts" routinely exposure bracket and then present only the best image? I don't, but I'm a lazy SOB.



I’m no expert for exposure so I let the camera handle it. I’m on a a7ii so I pretty much see what I’m getting before I shoot. I’ve never used exposure bracketing.


----------

