# What are the pros of a mirrorless camera ?



## ReneR

Hey everyone 

I'm a beginner to portrait shooting and I need some clarification on an item that I'm going to get. I consider buying Fujifilm X-T2, however, I have never used a mirrorless camera before. What would you say? Is it quite a good tool exactly for portraits? what issues can prevent from buying it? 

anyway, thanks


----------



## jcdeboever

ReneR said:


> Hey everyone
> 
> I'm a beginner to portrait shooting and I need some clarification on an item that I'm going to get. I consider buying Fujifilm X-T2, however, I have never used a mirrorless camera before. What would you say? Is it quite a good tool exactly for portraits? what issues can prevent from buying it?
> 
> anyway, thanks


I own one and I can vouch that it is a very capable camera. It is good at everything. As far as portraits, it will serve you well.


----------



## ReneR

well, what model of camera do you own?


----------



## jcdeboever

ReneR said:


> well, what model of camera do you own?


I own the XT2 and Xpro2. For portraits, I use the 50-140 mostly. The 35 f1.4, and 56 1.2R are useful as well. I've heard good things about the 90. I am not a pro but the 50-140 seems to work well and is very versatile and excellent image quality. Any glass that Fuji makes is exceptional, even their kit lens. As far as flash photography, it will require a little research to find what suits you best. I use the Nissin trigger and flash mostly, I also use the Cactus system to.


----------



## Fujidave

ReneR said:


> Hey everyone
> 
> I'm a beginner to portrait shooting and I need some clarification on an item that I'm going to get. I consider buying Fujifilm X-T2, however, I have never used a mirrorless camera before. What would you say? Is it quite a good tool exactly for portraits? what issues can prevent from buying it?
> 
> anyway, thanks



Hi Rene, I am lucky enough to own both the X-T2 and X-T20.  The X-T2 is a very good camera indeed and a joy to use both of my X camera`s.  X-T20 is smaller than the X-T2 and does not have all the same dials on the top, plus the X-T2 is WR but I never take a camera out in the rain.


----------



## Peeb

Recently purchased the xt20.  I like mirrorless for seeing in the EVF exactly what what the image will look like. For example, on b/w mode the viewfinder “sees” in black and white. Very handy.


----------



## Gary A.

^That^, I find to be extremely useful.  The EVF showing exacting what the capture image will look like.  I rarely use the meter, I just finely tune the EVF via aperture and shutter speed to attain/match the image in my head to what I see in the EVF.  The XP2 and XT2 are designed for manual control.  All the principle adjustments are levers or dials on the body or lens.  They are a joy to use as menu diving is significantly reduced. More importantly than being mirrorless, are the lenses are exceptional.  At a minimum, the lenses are equal to my Canon L lenses. One of the biggest negatives is the battery drains rather quickly.  Small camera = small battery.  This is easily trumped by carrying extra batteries.  As stated before the batteries are small and easily tucked away. Or, get a battery grip with space for two additional batteries.  The extra power can also be used to boost the camera's performance and great for vertical shots (a la portraits).


----------



## Fujidave

The reason I love my Fuji`s is, WYSIWYG and to see it change while looking through the view finder is great.


----------



## ReneR

jcdeboever said:


> ReneR said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, what model of camera do you own?
> 
> 
> 
> I own the XT2 and Xpro2. For portraits, I use the 50-140 mostly. The 35 f1.4, and 56 1.2R are useful as well. I've heard good things about the 90. I am not a pro but the 50-140 seems to work well and is very versatile and excellent image quality. Any glass that Fuji makes is exceptional, even their kit lens. As far as flash photography, it will require a little research to find what suits you best. I use the Nissin trigger and flash mostly, I also use the Cactus system to.
Click to expand...

It would be cool to take a look at your portraits then. You response valuable to me, thanks!


----------



## ReneR

Fujidave said:


> ReneR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey everyone
> 
> I'm a beginner to portrait shooting and I need some clarification on an item that I'm going to get. I consider buying Fujifilm X-T2, however, I have never used a mirrorless camera before. What would you say? Is it quite a good tool exactly for portraits? what issues can prevent from buying it?
> 
> anyway, thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rene, I am lucky enough to own both the X-T2 and X-T20.  The X-T2 is a very good camera indeed and a joy to use both of my X camera`s.  X-T20 is smaller than the X-T2 and does not have all the same dials on the top, plus the X-T2 is WR but I never take a camera out in the rain.
Click to expand...

taking into account all feedbacks cant wait getting my X-T2


----------



## Gary A.

FYI- Image Quality is a factor of many things, but mirror or lack of mirror is not in the IQ equation.


----------



## jcdeboever

ReneR said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReneR said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, what model of camera do you own?
> 
> 
> 
> I own the XT2 and Xpro2. For portraits, I use the 50-140 mostly. The 35 f1.4, and 56 1.2R are useful as well. I've heard good things about the 90. I am not a pro but the 50-140 seems to work well and is very versatile and excellent image quality. Any glass that Fuji makes is exceptional, even their kit lens. As far as flash photography, it will require a little research to find what suits you best. I use the Nissin trigger and flash mostly, I also use the Cactus system to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be cool to take a look at your portraits then. You response valuable to me, thanks!
Click to expand...

I'm traveling now. Got to the x photographers website. X-Photographers. You can search either camera body or lens. These would be better to look at than my dumb images.


----------



## beagle100

ReneR said:


> Hey everyone
> 
> I'm a beginner to portrait shooting and I need some clarification on an item that I'm going to get. I consider buying Fujifilm X-T2, however, I have never used a mirrorless camera before. What would you say? Is it quite a good tool exactly for portraits? what issues can prevent from buying it?
> 
> anyway, thanks



lots of pros in using mirrorless cameras - smaller size and weight and the ability to use the big DSLR lens
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## markjwyatt

Philosophically speaking, there is very little need for a mirrored digital camera. Mirrors were needed for film cameras, because you only get one shot at exposing the film. One reason to consider it is that there can still be a lag in the EVF for rapidly moving objects, but over the next few years this should be lees of an issue also. I really thought I needed an optical viewfinder, but once working with the X-T2, I have changed my view on that. Still there are some great mirrored cameras available and their benefits should be weighed against the mirror carry-over. A lot of other good things to consider were mentioned in the rest of the threads.


----------



## ac12

IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
Yes, there are sports/action mirrorless, but those are the EXPENSIVE Sony cameras.  That technology has not filtered down to the cameras that most of us can afford.

The camera mfg are still figuring out the batteries.  Mirrorless uses power, no power no viewfinder image.  But the early mirrorless used a small battery, to make the camera small.  So the battery life was significantly less than a dslr, primarily due to the smaller battery.  Some of the newer models are using larger batteries, so this problem is slowly being addressed.

In my case going to micro 4/3, the camera and lenses are SIGNIFICANTLY smaller and lighter than crop or FF.  This makes for a smaller and lighter kit for travel and as a grab camera.   My Olympus kit is about 43% lighter than my similar Nikon DX kit.

The con is the smaller 4/3 sensor is not as good for low light IQ compared to the larger a FF sensor.
There is no free lunch.

Presently, you can get a decent dslr for less cost than a comprable mirrorless.
This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.


----------



## Breezy85

ac12 said:


> IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
> Yes, there are sports/action mirrorless, but those are the EXPENSIVE Sony cameras.  That technology has not filtered down to the cameras that most of us can afford.
> 
> The camera mfg are still figuring out the batteries.  Mirrorless uses power, no power no viewfinder image.  But the early mirrorless used a small battery, to make the camera small.  So the battery life was significantly less than a dslr, primarily due to the smaller battery.  Some of the newer models are using larger batteries, so this problem is slowly being addressed.
> 
> In my case going to micro 4/3, the camera and lenses are SIGNIFICANTLY smaller and lighter than crop or FF.  This makes for a smaller and lighter kit for travel and as a grab camera.   My Olympus kit is about 43% lighter than my similar Nikon DX kit.
> 
> The con is the smaller 4/3 sensor is not as good for low light IQ compared to the larger a FF sensor.
> There is no free lunch.
> 
> Presently, you can get a decent dslr for less cost than a comprable mirrorless.
> This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.



See I have been wondering about mirrorless myself. Since I shoot mostly concerts and festivals, I find myself in low light situations often. I already am looking to upgrade to full frame but I've been contemplating whether to switch over to mirrorless or just stick to my goal of a regular full frame DSLR.​


----------



## Gary A.

I shoot a lot of concerts and shows. I found the Fuji APS-C a good compromise between the small footprint of MFT and the IQ of affect. 

I own FF and MFT cameras.


----------



## Gary A.

XP2 @ ISO 1600





XT1 @ ISO 3200





XT1 @ ISO 1600





XT1 @ ISO 1600


----------



## ac12

Breezy85 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
> Yes, there are sports/action mirrorless, but those are the EXPENSIVE Sony cameras.  That technology has not filtered down to the cameras that most of us can afford.
> 
> The camera mfg are still figuring out the batteries.  Mirrorless uses power, no power no viewfinder image.  But the early mirrorless used a small battery, to make the camera small.  So the battery life was significantly less than a dslr, primarily due to the smaller battery.  Some of the newer models are using larger batteries, so this problem is slowly being addressed.
> 
> In my case going to micro 4/3, the camera and lenses are SIGNIFICANTLY smaller and lighter than crop or FF.  This makes for a smaller and lighter kit for travel and as a grab camera.   My Olympus kit is about 43% lighter than my similar Nikon DX kit.
> 
> The con is the smaller 4/3 sensor is not as good for low light IQ compared to the larger a FF sensor.
> There is no free lunch.
> 
> Presently, you can get a decent dslr for less cost than a comprable mirrorless.
> This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See I have been wondering about mirrorless myself. Since I shoot mostly concerts and festivals, I find myself in low light situations often. I already am looking to upgrade to full frame but I've been contemplating whether to switch over to mirrorless or just stick to my goal of a regular full frame DSLR.​
Click to expand...


*Look for the lens first.*
It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.

Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.


----------



## beagle100

ac12 said:


> IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
> .
> This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.



I shoot sports and action with a mirrorless camera .........  seems to be there




Untitled by c w, on Flickr


----------



## Breezy85

ac12 said:


> *Look for the lens first.*
> It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.
> 
> Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.



Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.


----------



## jcdeboever

I think if I were only a portrait photog, I'd probably use


beagle100 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
> .
> This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shoot sports and action with a mirrorless camera .........  seems to be there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled by c w, on Flickr
Click to expand...


I agree, there is nothing it can't do. You just have to figure out the best settings. I have seen some amazing sports / action shots using the system, I just have not spent the time to figure it out. I am more into street photography. I have seen some amazing portrait work with the system as well and most of the stuff I'm blown away by are from the 50-140 and 90. There is a guy using the 55-200 and the 18-55 on the X photog website that is pretty flippin impressive as well. The Fuji glass is really impressive in my opinion. The XT-2 just keeps getting better with firmware updates. I will say though that the 56mm is a pro lens that requires a pro behind it, I struggle with that lens and my skill level is not up to speed yet. It is slow, slower than film but when you get it, it shines.


----------



## jcdeboever

Gary A. said:


> XP2 @ ISO 1600
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XT1 @ ISO 3200
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XT1 @ ISO 1600
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XT1 @ ISO 1600



Very impressive.


----------



## beagle100

jcdeboever said:


> I think if I were only a portrait photog, I'd probably use
> 
> 
> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF you shoot sports/action, mirrorless is not quite there yet.
> .
> This is simply due to market maturity and manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shoot sports and action with a mirrorless camera .........  seems to be there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled by c w, on Flickr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, there is nothing it can't do. You just have to figure out the best settings. I have seen some amazing sports / action shots using the system, I just have not spent the time to figure it out..
Click to expand...


if you're more into street pics look at "pancake" style lens

*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## ac12

Breezy85 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Look for the lens first.*
> It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.
> 
> Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.
Click to expand...


My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body


----------



## Breezy85

ac12 said:


> Breezy85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Look for the lens first.*
> It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.
> 
> Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
> Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
> So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body
Click to expand...


Oh wow 
Yeah I rented a Canon 6D a few weeks ago for some shows I was shooting, and it was the best thing I ever did! I got amazing photos and even the bands themselves were blown away by the photos I got.


----------



## beagle100

ac12 said:


> Breezy85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Look for the lens first.*
> It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
> Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
> So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body
Click to expand...


that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use *all* the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS,  even the rare TDK lens
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## ac12

beagle100 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breezy85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Look for the lens first.*
> It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
> Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
> So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use *all* the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS,  even the rare TDK lens
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
Click to expand...


The problem that I ran into is that the FoV changes with the sensor format.
Example the classic 70-200 FX/FF lens.  

On a DX/crop body with a 1.5x crop factor, the FoV is equivalent to a 105-300 FX/FF lens.  The issue is at the short end, the 105mm equivalent FoV is too tight for when the subject gets close.  So while my DX camera can use the FX lens, the tighter FoV on a DX body, makes it less than the ideal lens it was on a FX body.

On my m43 camera, with a 2x crop, it would have the FoV of a 140-400 FF lens.
So what is a fine football sideline lens on a FF camera, is a bleacher lens on a m43 camera.

So the ability to use a lens does not make it a practical fit, as originally designed/intended in its native format.

As for "easily use," that is another issue.  All of the Nikon to m43 adapters that I looked at, all stated that electronic communication between the lens and camera was not supported.  

This *$480 adapter* is an example.
"The Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter for Nikon G Lens to Select Micro Four Thirds-Mount Cameras _does not support electronic communication between an attached camera and lens_."
Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter MB_SPNFG-M43-BM2 B&H

Hmm, 
- So can I adjust f-stop from the camera, NO.
- There is a ring on the adapter to adjust the aperture.  So it is a MANUAL aperture, like my father's 1950s lens.  And I think it works ONLY for lenses with a mechanical aperture lever.  It will NOT work for lenses with electronic apertures.
- Will the autofocus work, not if the AF sensor in the camera cannot talk to the AF motor in the lens.  And I do not see a mechanical AF link (screw driver) for the mechanical AF (AF and AF-D).
- Can I focus manually, not if it is 'focus by wire.'  
- Will the Image Stabilizer work, maybe not.

For Nikon lenses, we might as we go back to the old manual lenses on the m43 cameras.  Even then we loose significant functionality, effectively taking us back to the 1950s.


----------



## beagle100

ac12 said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breezy85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Look for the lens first.*
> It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
> Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
> So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use *all* the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS,  even the rare TDK lens
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the ability to use a lens does not make it a practical fit, as originally designed/intended in its native format.
> 
> As for "easily use," that is another issue.  All of the Nikon to m43 adapters that I looked at, all stated that electronic communication between the lens and camera was not supported.
> - Will the autofocus work, not if the AF sensor in the camera cannot talk to the AF motor in the lens.  And I do not see a mechanical AF link (screw driver) for the mechanical AF (AF and AF-D).
> - Can I focus manually, not if it is 'focus by wire.'
> - Will the Image Stabilizer work, maybe not.
> 
> For Nikon lenses, we might as we go back to the old manual lenses on the m43 cameras.  Even then we loose significant functionality, effectively taking us back to the 1950s.
Click to expand...


I have no problem using "non-native" lenses on a mirrorless camera -  full AF, IS, etc
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Breezy85

ac12 said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breezy85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Look for the lens first.*
> It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
> Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
> So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use *all* the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS,  even the rare TDK lens
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem that I ran into is that the FoV changes with the sensor format.
> Example the classic 70-200 FX/FF lens.
> 
> On a DX/crop body with a 1.5x crop factor, the FoV is equivalent to a 105-300 FX/FF lens.  The issue is at the short end, the 105mm equivalent FoV is too tight for when the subject gets close.  So while my DX camera can use the FX lens, the tighter FoV on a DX body, makes it less than the ideal lens it was on a FX body.
> 
> On my m43 camera, with a 2x crop, it would have the FoV of a 140-400 FF lens.
> So what is a fine football sideline lens on a FF camera, is a bleacher lens on a m43 camera.
> 
> So the ability to use a lens does not make it a practical fit, as originally designed/intended in its native format.
> 
> As for "easily use," that is another issue.  All of the Nikon to m43 adapters that I looked at, all stated that electronic communication between the lens and camera was not supported.
> 
> This *$480 adapter* is an example.
> "The Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter for Nikon G Lens to Select Micro Four Thirds-Mount Cameras _does not support electronic communication between an attached camera and lens_."
> Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64x Adapter MB_SPNFG-M43-BM2 B&H
> 
> Hmm,
> - So can I adjust f-stop from the camera, NO.
> - There is a ring on the adapter to adjust the aperture.  So it is a MANUAL aperture, like my father's 1950s lens.  And I think it works ONLY for lenses with a mechanical aperture lever.  It will NOT work for lenses with electronic apertures.
> - Will the autofocus work, not if the AF sensor in the camera cannot talk to the AF motor in the lens.  And I do not see a mechanical AF link (screw driver) for the mechanical AF (AF and AF-D).
> - Can I focus manually, not if it is 'focus by wire.'
> - Will the Image Stabilizer work, maybe not.
> 
> For Nikon lenses, we might as we go back to the old manual lenses on the m43 cameras.  Even then we loose significant functionality, effectively taking us back to the 1950s.
Click to expand...


Eh, I'd rather just stick with the DSLR so I don't have to chuck out $$$ for the camera plus an adapter.


----------



## ac12

beagle100 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breezy85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Look for the lens first.*
> It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
> Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
> So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use *all* the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS,  even the rare TDK lens
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the ability to use a lens does not make it a practical fit, as originally designed/intended in its native format.
> 
> As for "easily use," that is another issue.  All of the Nikon to m43 adapters that I looked at, all stated that electronic communication between the lens and camera was not supported.
> - Will the autofocus work, not if the AF sensor in the camera cannot talk to the AF motor in the lens.  And I do not see a mechanical AF link (screw driver) for the mechanical AF (AF and AF-D).
> - Can I focus manually, not if it is 'focus by wire.'
> - Will the Image Stabilizer work, maybe not.
> 
> For Nikon lenses, we might as we go back to the old manual lenses on the m43 cameras.  Even then we loose significant functionality, effectively taking us back to the 1950s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem using "non-native" lenses on a mirrorless camera -  full AF, IS, etc
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
Click to expand...


It probably depends on the lens/camera combo, but Nikon at least on m43 seems out of luck.


----------



## waday

Come on, we all know the real problem with DSLRs. Portrait photography of vampires is nearly impossible.


----------



## Breezy85

ac12 said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breezy85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Look for the lens first.*
> It makes no sense to get a camera system that does not have the lens you need for what you shoot.Sigma has helped the Nikon DX and Canon crop cameras, by providing the fast lenses that Nikon and Canon do not make, like the 50-100 f/1.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that's why I'm leaning more toward getting a Canon full frame versus mirrorless just because I have already spent good money on good glass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Nikon DX and lenses was fine for what I wanted it for.
> Then things changed, and the lenses that I wanted were not available in DX format.
> So I bought a FX/FF lens, and am now looking at a 2nd FX/FF lens, and possibly a FX/FF body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use *all* the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS,  even the rare TDK lens
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the ability to use a lens does not make it a practical fit, as originally designed/intended in its native format.
> 
> As for "easily use," that is another issue.  All of the Nikon to m43 adapters that I looked at, all stated that electronic communication between the lens and camera was not supported.
> - Will the autofocus work, not if the AF sensor in the camera cannot talk to the AF motor in the lens.  And I do not see a mechanical AF link (screw driver) for the mechanical AF (AF and AF-D).
> - Can I focus manually, not if it is 'focus by wire.'
> - Will the Image Stabilizer work, maybe not.
> 
> For Nikon lenses, we might as we go back to the old manual lenses on the m43 cameras.  Even then we loose significant functionality, effectively taking us back to the 1950s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem using "non-native" lenses on a mirrorless camera -  full AF, IS, etc
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It probably depends on the lens/camera combo, but Nikon at least on m43 seems out of luck.
Click to expand...


It does depend. I shot a few shows in low light using a Canon 6D with 24-70mm f/2.8 USM II lens, and the photos are incredible!



waday said:


> Come on, we all know the real problem with DSLRs. Portrait photography of vampires is nearly impossible.



Touché LOL! But as ac12 said, it depends on the camera/lens combo.


----------



## Gary A.

waday said:


> Come on, we all know the real problem with DSLRs. Portrait photography of vampires is nearly impossible.


And if you drop a dSLR you get seven years of bad luck.


----------



## dxqcanada

Hmm, I thought you get seven years if you break the mirror on a DSLR ... mirrorless no got a mirror


----------



## Derrel

beagle100 said:
			
		

> that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use *all* the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS,  even the rare TDK lens
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*



Yet AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, you repeat this same,tired lie. You are like a broken record, repeating a lie, over and over and over and over and over. And in this thread above ac12 has taken you to task. Your use of the words "easily use" and "all the lenses"...that's quite simply a lie.

No autofocus. hair-trigger manual movement of the focusing ring on autofocusing lenses that are being used on non-native bodies. The need for adapters, some of them expensive. No automatic focusing with 90% or more of adapters. Autofocusing lenses that were deigned to be focused by a computer and a micro-motor, now being hacked onto a mirrorless where the hair-trigger focusing means that in many situations, hitting the right focus will be well,well beyond the skill level of many shooters.

We get it, beagle, you are a mirrorless fan. One who repeats the same,tired cannard, over and over and over. You really ought to be disciplined for this. Seriously. It's pathetic.

Write some truth once in a while. "easily use" and all the lenses". Both lies.

The fact that a lens can be hack-mounted onto a camera it was never intended to be used on does NOT make it "easy to use". If correct focusing is a priority, or correct flash metering, or the ability to focus fast, and accurately, if any of those things are a priority, then the hack-mounted lens might really be quite difficult to use for many,many people.


----------



## beagle100

Derrel said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use *all* the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS,  even the rare TDK lens
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> 
> 
> No autofocus. hair-trigger manual movement of the focusing ring on autofocusing lenses that are being used on non-native bodies. The need for adapters, some of them expensive. No automatic focusing with 90% or more of adapters. Autofocusing lenses that were deigned to be focused by a computer and a micro-motor, now being hacked onto a mirrorless where the hair-trigger focusing means that in many situations, hitting the right focus will be well,well beyond the skill level of many shooters.
> The fact that a lens can be hack-mounted onto a camera it was never intended to be used on does NOT make it "easy to use". If correct focusing is a priority, or correct flash metering, or the ability to focus fast, and accurately, if any of those things are a priority, then the hack-mounted lens might really be quite difficult to use for many,many people.
Click to expand...


LOL !
I can easily use my DSLR lens on a mirrorless camera ... with a $19 adapter !
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## ac12

beagle100 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's the good thing about mirrorless cameras, they can easily use *all* the different lens - FX, DX, MX, SX, GX, EFS,  even the rare TDK lens
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> 
> 
> No autofocus. hair-trigger manual movement of the focusing ring on autofocusing lenses that are being used on non-native bodies. The need for adapters, some of them expensive. No automatic focusing with 90% or more of adapters. Autofocusing lenses that were deigned to be focused by a computer and a micro-motor, now being hacked onto a mirrorless where the hair-trigger focusing means that in many situations, hitting the right focus will be well,well beyond the skill level of many shooters.
> The fact that a lens can be hack-mounted onto a camera it was never intended to be used on does NOT make it "easy to use". If correct focusing is a priority, or correct flash metering, or the ability to focus fast, and accurately, if any of those things are a priority, then the hack-mounted lens might really be quite difficult to use for many,many people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL !
> I can easily use my DSLR lens on a mirrorless camera ... with a $19 adapter !
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
Click to expand...


So your's can, mine cannot.  
As I posted, it is a PiA to use my Nikon DSLR lenses on my m43.  And I go back to 1950s functionality, no auto anything.
So not a universal condition.


----------



## jamescooper18

Firstly, I would like to say some positive aspects of a mirrorless camera. They are very easy to carry. Smaller,lighter and cheaper than a DSLR. Instead of view finder it has live view system.

Secondly, I would like say a few cons of it. The autofocus system of mirrorless is much slower. It has heavily customizable settings that can be hard for you since it has no view finder.
So, choice is yours.


----------



## sergezap

jamescooper18 said:


> Firstly, I would like to say some positive aspects of a mirrorless camera. They are very easy to carry. Smaller,lighter and cheaper than a DSLR. Instead of view finder it has live view system.
> 
> Secondly, I would like say a few cons of it. The autofocus system of mirrorless is much slower. It has heavily customizable settings that can be hard for you since it has no view finder.
> So, choice is yours.


The autofocus system of mirrorless is much slower?
I hope you're kidding!


----------



## Jeff15

I used all Nikon gear for many years but due to ill health I needed to carry less weight around so I changed to Panasonic Lumix gear.  I wish I had done this years ago.


----------



## sergezap

I switched from Canon to Panasonic last year.
The only thing i'm missing - 135L.
It can be fixed with Metabones Ultra easily.


----------



## jcdeboever

adapted lens work on my fujifilm but after using them, I just use the native mount glass. I don't get the hype. Most of the M42 show CA or nervous bokeh and frankly, the micro contrast leaves a lot to be desired. I tried it, it works but I'm not telling people to go out and get a fuji to mount your old glass on. Seems counter productive with all the  great fuji glass offerings.


----------



## Gary A.

Some old glass have unique character... signatures.  But, I think that generally, the pro level OEM lenses coming from Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji ... all deliver wonderfully sharp images equal to pro level dSLR lenses.

Having used manual focusing lenses professionally back in the film-only days. For me there is nothing finer than good autofocus.


----------



## sergezap

Old and modern manual lenses are amazing in video production, at least.


----------



## waday

sergezap said:


> I switched from Canon to Panasonic last year.
> The only thing i'm missing - 135L.
> It can be fixed with Metabones Ultra easily.


Have you tried Oly's 75mm? While it's a little longer than 135mm (35-mm equivalent), it can produce some fantastic images.


----------



## sergezap

waday said:


> sergezap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I switched from Canon to Panasonic last year.
> The only thing i'm missing - 135L.
> It can be fixed with Metabones Ultra easily.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried Oly's 75mm? While it's a little longer than 135mm (35-mm equivalent), it can produce some fantastic images.
Click to expand...

Yes, and i'll  buy it.
But in comparison with 135L it's just sucks.
Not in the terms resolution, sharpness, color rendition and so on.
Technically Oly is far superior,but images from 135L looks like magic to me.


----------



## Gary A.

I enjoyed my 75mm when I was shooting MFT.






75mm





75mm





75mm





75mm


----------



## waday

sergezap said:


> Not in the terms resolution, sharpness, color rendition and so on.


Or size, weight, price... 



sergezap said:


> Technically Oly is far superior,but images from 135L looks like magic to me.


I can appreciate that... that we all have a lens that we like the output of more than another lens. I think the Oly 75mm is one of those for me.



Gary A. said:


> I enjoyed my 75mm when I was shooting MFT.


I agree, I very much like shooting with the 75mm. Gary, I've just recently noticed old posts of yours on the one MFT forum. I especially liked the "what are you drinking" thread you started. Do we have a similar one on here?  (And, BTW, I LOVE that last picture with the boat and skyline.)


----------



## sergezap

Gary A. said:


> I enjoyed my 75mm when I was shooting MFT.


Sorry, but this is incomparable.
It's just impossible with native MFT lenses.
I even not sure, if Speedboster will helps.


 

 

 

 


Small black button click => Watercolor background in full length portrait!


----------



## cameraland

We sell every major brand. For the last 5 years we have seen the market swing HEAVILY to mirrorless. That is the way the industry is going. Depending on your budget, Mirrorless will do what you need for most types of photography.
In the last 6 months we have taken more traditional digital SLR's and lenses in trade towards mirrorless outfits. The last time this happened was 1985 when everyone was trading in their equipment for the Minolta Maxxum. 
Canon lens owners can switch to Sony and get the Metabones or Sigma adapters. You should only do this if you have a lot of glass. The Sony lenses are superb, the Fuji system is terrific as well.
Feel free to contact me at joel@cameralandny.com with any questions.


----------



## Jeff15

Mirrorless is the future....


----------



## petrochemist

ReneR said:


> Hey everyone
> 
> I'm a beginner to portrait shooting and I need some clarification on an item that I'm going to get. I consider buying Fujifilm X-T2, however, I have never used a mirrorless camera before. What would you say? Is it quite a good tool exactly for portraits? what issues can prevent from buying it?
> 
> anyway, thanks


Yes the technology is fine for portraits.

I have several older mirrorless cameras (over 4 years old - the gep to DSLRs has closed since mine were made). Mine can do most jobs just as well as my DSLR, but do suffer a little in fast action. They definitely have the edge for low light shooting as well as for adapting lenses & infra-red...

When I upgrade to another camera it will definitely be a mirrorless.


----------



## Warhorse

As I understand the LCD screen shows 100% what will be in the photo, but does the EFV on the models that have them, show the same 100%?


----------



## sergezap

Warhorse said:


> As I understand the LCD screen shows 100% what will be in the photo, but does the EFV on the models that have them, show the same 100%?


If you turned on something like "Constant preview" or "Exposure simulation", so the answer is yes.
In RAW mode you'll get the preview of embedded jpeg according to your active photo style.
Anyway they both show the same.


----------



## markjwyatt

I believe there is little reason for the DSLR in digital world. If you still want a an optical viewfinder a combination optical/EVF makes more sense. The SLR and its mirror was an engineering solution to seeing the picture accurately in advance with light sensitive emulsion film. Don't get me wrong, there are still some excellent DSLRs. I was considering the Pentax K1 Mark III for a while (along with the Sony a7 III), but decided not to go full frame which then led to my next choice, the Fuji X-series (XT2 specifically). The next round of EVF technology will likely put the nail in the coffin of the DSLR (the current generation is pretty close already).


----------



## Derrel

sergezap said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed my 75mm when I was shooting MFT.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this is incomparable.
> It's just impossible with native MFT lenses.
> I even not sure, if Speedboster will helps.
> View attachment 159728 View attachment 159729 View attachment 159730 View attachment 159731 View attachment 159732
> Small black button click => Watercolor background in full length portrait!
Click to expand...


Yes, the 135mm f/2 L lens from Canon is a fantastic optic when used on a 24x36mm sensor, at the normal distances that full-frame gives the photographer. With a tiny-sensor camera, the lens becomes narrow in angle of view, and the photographer is forced to statnd relatively FAR AWAY with ALL of the telephoto lenses...75mm,85mm,100mm,135mm,200mm...and because the camera-to-subject distance is so long and the capture format so small, at most aperture values, there's quite a bit of recognizability to the background. That is an issue with MFT format cameras and their native lenses...the format's small, so there's a LOT of camera-to-subject distance, and even at f/2.8, the backgrounds tend toward the more-recongixable rather than the creamy, dreamy, totally-defocused look the 135/2 L is known for.

When we look at your pictures of these lovely young ladies, we can literally SEE what the 135/2 is known for: a very quick transition from the OOF foreground, then immediately sliding into the focused zone, and then a quick and smooth transition to the defocused zone. The last two photos show this superbly, at the foot-level on both women's shots; OOF foreground, in-focus zone, then a quick, smooth transition to the OOF backdrop. This is one of the reasons that 24x36mm or FF or FX cameras are so popular wth people-shooters...the actual lenses that are out there, and the distances that those lenses can be used at, to make full-length standing pictures...this is a very stylized way of photographing people with a lot of background defocus. Some people just do not "get it", but it is exactly why the camera makers have come up with a number of fast tele lenses over the decades. (85/1.4,105/2,135/2,180/2.8,200/2)

I appreciate the idea that Speedbooster can not achieve the same look; with smaller camera formats at typical 20- to 50-foot distances, even increasing the maximum f/stop's width (which Speedbooster does) of normal telephoto lenses in the f/2.8 or f/2 range, the smallness of the format and the camera-to-subject distance is still less-effective than using a bigger capture format, if the type of backdrop blurring you show is the end goal.

This is why Nikon has recently developed the ultra-aperture 105mm f/1.4 for full-frame Nikons...HUGE defocus potential on people pictures.


----------



## sergezap

I'm not a shallow dof junky, the reason i made a note about 135L, 99% of urban background at the place i live looks disgusting.
I think it's not about defocus as is, but it's more about defocus character.
Sigma primes has a bokeh, but i find it very boring. It's just a blur, imho.


----------



## Derrel

sergezap said:


> I'm not a shallow dof junky, the reason i made a note about 135L, 99% of urban background at the place i live looks disgusting.
> I think it's not about defocus as is, but it's more about defocus character.
> Sigma primes has a bokeh, but i find it very boring. It's just a blur, imho.



Throwing all that ugly backdrop out of focus makes the person POP! in a gorgeous way. You are right...the 135/2 L has delicious defocus character...I owned the lens for a few years...it's stellar. I agree; some of the new Sigma primes have rather unimpressive defocus character, and some of them (35/1.4 ART and 50/1.4 ART) have really hard, jarring defocus character. Canon's 135/2-L is not the sharpest 135mm lens (Zeiss and Sigma both have sharper,crisper lenses), but it's plenty sharp, but has the gorgeous defocus character that only a handful of lenses have. Sigma's gone overboard maximizing sharpness so their lenses test-chart score very highly, but the defocus character of such lenses is often lacking.


----------



## petrochemist

Derrel said:


> Yes, the 135mm f/2 L lens from Canon is a fantastic optic when used on a 24x36mm sensor, at the normal distances that full-frame gives the photographer. With a tiny-sensor camera, the lens becomes narrow in angle of view, and the photographer is forced to statnd relatively FAR AWAY with ALL of the telephoto lenses...75mm,85mm,100mm,135mm,200mm...and because the camera-to-subject distance is so long and the capture format so small, at most aperture values, there's quite a bit of recognizability to the background. That is an issue with MFT format cameras and their native lenses...the format's small, so there's a LOT of camera-to-subject distance, and even at f/2.8, the backgrounds tend toward the more-recongixable rather than the creamy, dreamy, totally-defocused look the 135/2 L is known for.


Derrel I usually find I agree with your posts, but I don't get this rubbish at all.

Whatever the format size the photographer chooses the camera-subject distance to get the perspective he/she wants (or as near as is practical). They then select an appropriate lens for their distance & format. The distance I'd want for a portrait would be the same with a mobile phone, compact camera, MFT, APSC, full frame, medium format or large format - as long as a suitable lens was available.

Yes if using a 135/2 on MFT the subject distance could be too long for portraits, but a 85mm/2.8 or 50mm/1.4 would both be pretty suitable.  When putting together a camera system a wise photographer gets lenses for the effect on their camera not for the result it gives on a totally different format.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs

sergezap said:


> jamescooper18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I would like to say some positive aspects of a mirrorless camera. They are very easy to carry. Smaller,lighter and cheaper than a DSLR. Instead of view finder it has live view system.
> 
> Secondly, I would like say a few cons of it. The autofocus system of mirrorless is much slower. It has heavily customizable settings that can be hard for you since it has no view finder.
> So, choice is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> The autofocus system of mirrorless is much slower?
> I hope you're kidding!
Click to expand...


That’s what has been touted for a long time but I think the gap is nearly gone now if I’m not mistaken. I have a Sony a7ii with the 85mm gm lens and it’s pretty darn quick.


----------



## Derrel

Petrochemist, Surely you understand that the larger capture formats have shallower depth of field, for the same picture angle of view. A 4x5 sheet film camera creates shallow depth of field headshots; an iPhone creates a huge DOF on a headshot. The only rubbish here is your failure to comprehend some very-basic photographic science. Perhaps you can re-read my post with an effort toward better reading comprehension;surely you have the requisite scientific background to understand how DOF relates to capture size. Not every camera format creates the same look-no matter how much you say it does.


----------



## petrochemist

Derrel said:


> Petrochemist, Surely you understand that the larger capture formats have shallower depth of field, for the same picture angle of view. A 4x5 sheet film camera creates shallow depth of field headshots; an iPhone creates a huge DOF on a headshot. The only rubbish here is your failure to comprehend some very-basic photographic science. Perhaps you can re-read my post with an effort toward better reading comprehension;surely you have the requisite scientific background to understand how DOF relates to capture size. Not every camera format creates the same look-no matter how much you say it does.


Yes, larger formats give shallower DOF for a given situation.
But they do not force the photographer to stand further back - standing further back will change the perspective significantly. They just need a different lens to get similar results, which includes using a faster aperture to get the same DOF if that is needed.
I wouldn't claim every camera produces the same look - there are just so many variables in digital cameras in particular that can introduce subtle differences even when lens & sensor size are identical. In many cases DOF between format sizes can be matched by using an appropriate aperture though there are limits to this.


----------



## sergezap

Perspective depends from lens focal length, it's irrelevant with focus distance.
Perspective compression depends from focal length only.
Relative distance from camera-to-object-to-background affects only a background  blur.   
The level of background blur outside the DOF has no any common with perspective.
DOF is irrelevant to bokeh.
Please, stop.


----------



## waday

Wow, we have a lot going on in this thread, from perspective discussions and DOF to format differences. Maybe we can keep to the OP’s original question and theme regarding portraits.

Wouldn’t want this to turn into a format war or a DOF/bokeh/perspective argument.


----------



## petrochemist

sergezap said:


> Perspective depends from lens focal length, it's irrelevant with focus distance.
> Perspective compression depends from focal length only.


WRONG!
Take a photograph of street lights with 2 different focal lengths from the same spot, then measure the heights of the poles. You will find the ratio of heights is the same. This is what perspective is. If you change position to make the nearer object the same size with your new focal length it will change the perspective - this is where the oft quoted misconception that focal length controls perspective comes from.
Instead it's all about the relative angles subtended at the eye/lens which is purely a matter of position.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

_
[Note:  I have re-arranged the quotes.]_


sergezap said:


> . . .
> Sorry, but this is incomparable.
> It's just impossible with native MFT lenses.
> 
> I even not sure, if Speedboster will helps.
> . . .



I think the equivalent M4:3 lens to a 135mm F2 would be about 65mm F1.0, and as far as I know, you're right.  Regardless of particular "Bokeh style" and other quirks, that focal length and Fstop combination simply does not currently exist.
_[2018-07-06 17:24 Correction:  I originally wrote "65mm F1.4, which was wrong.]_



Derrel said:


> Yes, the 135mm f/2 L lens from Canon
> . . .
> there's a LOT of camera-to-subject distance, and even at f/2.8, the backgrounds tend toward the more-recongixable rather than the creamy, dreamy, totally-defocused look the 135/2 L is known for.
> 
> . . .
> 
> I appreciate the idea that Speedbooster can not achieve the same look; with smaller camera formats at typical 20- to 50-foot distances, even increasing the maximum f/stop's width (which Speedbooster does) of normal telephoto lenses in the f/2.8 or f/2 range, the smallness of the format and the camera-to-subject distance is still less-effective than using a bigger capture format, if the type of backdrop blurring you show is the end goal.
> . . .



I would recommend against "Speedboosters" for still photography in general.  You would need one properly matched to the specific lens and designed and made on a "cost is no object" basis.  "Speedboosters" seem to be wonderful for video, but, video is very forgiving.

Anyway, just out of curiosity, I wondered what current lenses might be close on a Micro 4:3.  I have never really looked into any of these lenses yet, so I make no comment about whether you might actually like any of them, but this is what I found:

*All the Following are Manual:*

"Meyer-Optik Gorlitz P58 58mm f/1.9 Lens for Micro Four Thirds"
B&H # MEG1958MFT MFR # MOG1958MFT, $1,299.00 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly short focal length, and quite expensive.]

"Lensbaby Velvet 56mm f/1.6 Lens for Micro Four Thirds"
B&H # LELBV56BM MFR # LBV56BM $449.95 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly short focal length, but a nice price.]

[There might be a "7Artisan 55mm F1.4" for around $130.00 US -- I just thought of it and I have not looked for it yet.]

*The Following Need Adapters*

"HD Pentax DA 70mm F2.4 Limited"
B&H # PE7024DALB MFR # 21430, price 2018-0703 $496.95 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly long focal length, but a nice price.]

"smc Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited"
B&H # PE7718FAB MFR # 27980, price 2018-0703 $896.95 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly long focal length, price?  _Actually, rule this one out, if the 75mm Olympus was too long, so this would be worse._]

*The Following Is Automatic:*

"Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Lens for Micro Four Thirds Mount Cameras (Black)"
B&H # SI6028DNM43B MFR # 350963, $209.00 US
[Not big enough Fstop and slightly short focal length, but a best price.  But yeah, that Fstop?  Doubt if you'll like it.]
_[Final Correction:  Yes it IS autofocus.  Many apologies for the confusion, it is very late right now.  ]_


----------



## petrochemist

VidThreeNorth said:


> _[Note:  I have re-arranged the quotes.]_
> 
> I would recommend against "Speedboosters" for still photography in general.  You would need one properly matched to the specific lens and designed and made on a "cost is no object" basis.  "Speedboosters" seem to be wonderful for video, but, video is very forgiving.



I've never tried a true Speedbooster, but I have used a budget focal reducer (the RJ version which was about 1/5 the price of the metabones model when I got it). All my shots with it have been with lenses that had to be adapted to its EF mount - I've used it with PK, M42, T2 & OM lenses and maybe a few other mounts.
Even my budget model works pretty well for stills over a wide range of lenses.

Here's one with a 50mm/1.4:



P1040586small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
(DOF too shallow for a good portrait IMO)

And a handheld shot with a 600mm/f8:



Supermoon pre-eclipse by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

Both shots with minimal processing (no sharpening etc)


----------



## VidThreeNorth

petrochemist said:


> VidThreeNorth said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Note:  I have re-arranged the quotes.]_
> 
> I would recommend against "Speedboosters" for still photography in general.  You would need one properly matched to the specific lens and designed and made on a "cost is no object" basis.  "Speedboosters" seem to be wonderful for video, but, video is very forgiving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never tried a true Speedbooster, but I have used a budget focal reducer (the RJ version which was about 1/5 the price of the metabones model when I got it). All my shots with it have been with lenses that had to be adapted to its EF mount - I've used it with PK, M42, T2 & OM lenses and maybe a few other mounts.
> Even my budget model works pretty well for stills over a wide range of lenses.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Both shots with minimal processing (no sharpening etc)
Click to expand...


They look better than I would have expected.  Eventually I will be getting one at least for video work, but I will try it for still too.  Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. . . .


----------



## sergezap

VidThreeNorth said:


> _[Note:  I have re-arranged the quotes.]_
> I think the equivalent M4:3 lens to a 135mm F2 would be about 65mm F1.4, and as far as I know, you're right.  Regardless of particular "Bokeh style" and other quirks, that focal length and Fstop combination simply does not currently exist.


Please not again! ))) Equivalent in what? You can emulate angle of view and dof only. 
Perspective is irrelevant to these. Perspective is about how 3d world looks in 2d projection.
Perspective depends from angular dimension of object, and perspective compression depends from local length.
You would get equivalent angle of view with perspective and distortions from your original lens.

I agree that speedboosters is a bad choice for "technical"photography. It's increases aberrations at least. But i need my own tests for portraiture.

P.S. LensBaby stuff is overpriced toys, imho.


----------



## beagle100

petrochemist said:


> VidThreeNorth said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Note:  I have re-arranged the quotes.]_
> 
> I would recommend against "Speedboosters" for still photography in general.  You would need one properly matched to the specific lens and designed and made on a "cost is no object" basis.  "Speedboosters" seem to be wonderful for video, but, video is very forgiving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never tried a true Speedbooster, but I have used a budget focal reducer (the RJ version which was about 1/5 the price of the metabones model when I got it). All my shots with it have been with lenses that had to be adapted to its EF mount - I've used it with PK, M42, T2 & OM lenses and maybe a few other mounts.
> Even my budget model works pretty well for stills over a wide range of lenses.
> 
> Here's one with a 50mm/1.4:
> P1040586sall by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
> (DOF too shallow for a good portrait IMO)
> 
> And a handheld shot with a 600mm/f8:
> 
> 
> 
> Supermoon pre-eclipse by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
> 
> Both shots with minimal processing (no sharpening etc)
Click to expand...


I  would probably not use a "speedbooster" or lensbaby

mirrorless moon shot f9 @ 600mm  (with a tripod)



Untitled by c w, on Flickr


----------



## VidThreeNorth

@sergezap:

Sorry.  There has been a lot written in this topic and I got confused about who wrote what.  Clearly you were commenting about other lens characteristics.

@Derrel:

Actually, the point I tried to make (with an error in my above post) was that you can generally match the DOF characteristic at the focal length if you use the "formula" correctly.  The point is that you do NOT match the focal length and the F-stop.  As you know, the smaller sensor and lens will give greater DOF.  What you do is you decide the angle of view and DOF you want in the picture and then chose a body + lens that can give that result.  The necessary F-stop will be a lower number on the smaller sensor.  But if you match it that way, you get those characteristics.  You also end up with more light, which might or might not work out.  If it is within the camera's ISO range you can even match the exposure time, but if not, then you will have to speed it up.  If you cannot speed it up, then you might need ND filters.

If anyone tries speed-boosters on M4:3 though, you also have to be careful to buy the right type.  Some are being made with APS-C to Full Frame conversion lenses.  I think there are also M4:3 to APS-C conversion lenses (I'm not sure about that).  If you want a M4:3 to Full Frame conversion lens, well, you will want to make sure that it is what you are buying.


----------

