# Shooting manual



## Summer75

Can one shoot in Manual, or even take RAW photos, with a mirror-less camera? I am a dslr owner and have often wondered about these middle-ground cameras that offer more than a point and shoot but seem a step below a dslr. I am also wondering if you can change lenses with them.


----------



## cherylynne1

Every mirrorless camera I know if can shoot in manual, shoot in Raw, and change lenses. They are designed to be equal to DSLRs, not a step below. Most have ASP-C sensors, although a few are full frame. There is no difference in image quality from a DSLR, the biggest difference in using them is that they have an electronic viewfinder, which is a slightly different experience and drains the battery faster.


----------



## petrochemist

I think the current mirrorless cameras from Canon & Nikon are somewhat below DSLR, but they would be happy top kill of the genre. My own mirrorless cameras are all older models but make good replacements for DSLRs, for most subject types. Currently my DSLR works better for motorsport & airshows (fast action with longer lenses)  the latest models probably aren't so far behind there. Having both available I think I've shot roughly equal amounts with each in the last year.
As the technology improves I rather suspect that mirrorless will take over completely in a ~10 years time.

For the record my Mirrorless are better on manual than my DSLR. Longer shutter speeds available, magnified EVF for focusing, and via adapters can take a much wider range of lenses.


----------



## Ysarex

Not only can my mirrorless camera shoot in full Manual but it has Program mode too. And my mirrorless camera lenses have actual f/stops -- really -- on the lens.

Joe


----------



## Summer75

Thanks for the responses. This helps my understanding. I did a quick google and the mirrorless are a fairly new thing than? All I really knew of was the point and shoot verses the DSLR. Isn't there a middle ground camera that shoots in manual and even RAW but does not change lenses. Kind of like a step up from a point and shoot but not quite a DSLR?


----------



## petrochemist

I think some of the better compact cameras can have RAW & Manual modes, I've certainly got at least one that does manual.
For intermediate cameras you'll generally be after a bridge camera. SLR like shape but fixed lenses (usually with high zoom factors).

Mirrorless cameras have been around since Panasonic brought out the G1 (2009?). They've gone by a collection of terms in the intervening years with mirrorless lately being the one that's aught on. previous terms include EVIL (electronic veiwfinder, interchangable lens), CSC (Compact systems camera), DSLM (digital single lens mirrorless)...


----------



## limr

Summer75 said:


> Thanks for the responses. This helps my understanding. I did a quick google and the mirrorless are a fairly new thing than? All I really knew of was the point and shoot verses the DSLR. Isn't there a middle ground camera that shoots in manual and even RAW but does not change lenses. Kind of like a step up from a point and shoot but not quite a DSLR?



Yes, I believe you are thinking of bridge cameras: Best Bridge Camera of 2015 - What Digital Camera

These are not the same as mirrorless cameras: 10 best mirrorless cameras of 2015


----------



## Gary A.

While Point & Shoots and Bridge cameras are mirrorless, they are not an Interchangeable Lenses Camera (ILC).  There are mirrorless cameras which have similar features and capabilities as a dSLR. Look at Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung and Fuji (just to name some of the top mirrorless brands). I shoot 100% in RAW and 95% in Manual. I have FF dSLR's, but I prefer my Fuji XT1, APS-C, mirrorless over my Canon 1Ds, FF, dSLR.

Some recent examples of Mirrorless/RAW/Manual with the Fuji XT1 @ ISO 3200.

From a theatrical production of Godspell:

#1






#2





#3





#4





#5





#6


----------



## Summer75

Nice! I am learning alot here, thanks for all the responses.


----------



## astroNikon

Summer75 said:


> Thanks for the responses. This helps my understanding. I did a quick google and the mirrorless are a fairly new thing than? All I really knew of was the point and shoot verses the DSLR. Isn't there a middle ground camera that shoots in manual and even RAW but does not change lenses. Kind of like a step up from a point and shoot but not quite a DSLR?


There's essentially
- Point & Shoot
- Compact
- Bridge
- 1 inch, MFT, APC-S & FF Mirrorless interchangeable (and non-interchangeable) lenses
- DSLR

In addition to my DSLR I have a compact (non-interchangeable lens) that shots RAW and has full Manual controls, and a bright EVF.  A Nikon P7800.  It's a different in handling than my dslr but once you get used to it's operating features it's pretty nice for a pocketable camera.


----------



## Gary A.

Some advantages of mirrorless are: generally a smaller footprint (a mirror box takes up a lot of real estate), much quieter (no loud mirror slap sound), less movining parts to break/maintain (a mirror box and optical conveyance are not as robust as a non-moving Electronic Viewfinder, EVF), the EVF can be adjusted to automatically compensate for ambient light levels (so if you're shooting in the dark the EVF will auto-gain for easier focusing/framing, great for shoot in a studio environment using flash), or the EVF can reflect your exposure and you can instantly see if you're over or under exposed without referencing the light meter. With mirrorless you can find an adapter for practically every lens ever made and use it manually on mirrorless, (some adapters will allow the photog to use a newer lens in auto modes).  These newer mirrorless systems are designed from the ground-up to work with and compliment new electronic components and sensors (as opposed to older dSLR's which evolved from SLR's and inherited much of the SLR legency which may be good or bad ... Which may work well with newer sensors/electronics or not).

Some disadvantages are: The Auto Focus System, while lightening fast, isn't as good as a dSLR for tracking moving subjects.  The better mirrorless systems, Sony, Oly, Pany, Fuji are relatively new and haven't nearly the shear amount of lenses and accessories of the established dSLR manufacturers of Nikon and Canon.  But how many lenses do you really need? (As opposed to want ... Lol.). But, these smaller mirrorless manufacturers are pumping out new lenses and expanding their systems.). I believe that unlike dSLR systems, most/all mirrorless manufacturers only sell one format/sensor size camera.  Sony makes FF mirrorless only, Fuji makes APS-C mirrorless only, Oly and Pany only make MFT mirrorless.


----------



## f/otographer

Gary A. said:


> Sony makes FF mirrorless only



Sony does indeed make apsc mirrorless, they actually started with those before full frame. All of the NEX cameras are apsc as well as the newer ones like the a6000. Those are some really great images you have there by the way Gary.

To the OP, one way to think about mirrorless is in the very name...mirror-less. The modern crop of mirrorless cameras like the A7 series and the Fuji are really just 'mirrorless' DSLR's. They can do much or all of what DSLR's do just without the mirror and with an EVF instead, thus the mirrorless moniker. I like to think of mirrorless cameras (MC's) as just an evolution of the DSLR. But most manufacturers have chosen to do away with the traditional shape that the DSLR has evolved into and have come out with a bewildering array of form factors, some sleek and modern and some very retro.

Now one thing to remember, as others have said, is even though MC's are evolutions of DSLR's sometimes the autofocus isn't as good as top of the line DSLR's. That's because the DSLR (and the SLR on which it is based) has had over 30 years of research and development put into its autofocus mirrorbox system. MC's have only been focusing off the sensor for a few short years in comparison. _Of course_ the DSLR will have a current advantage here, at least for the time being and really in more of the high end models. But for all intents and purposes the mirrorbox is pretty much at the end of its life as far as development goes, whereas on sensor focusing technology has lots and lots of development ahead of it. So AF for MC's will eventually catch up to the top of the line DSLR's and most likely surpass them. The problem is going to be in the refresh rate of the EVF. There may be a wall there imparted by physics that an EVF cant over come when trying to AF on fast moving targets. Not from an AF perspective so much as a 'what can I see in the EVF' perspective. Time will tell.

Another huge advantage of most MC's is the ability to use almost any lens out there. My Sony a7 is for me little more than a 24mp digital back for every lens ever made, especially since I only shoot old legacy lenses. This wont work for everyone in all situations, but it suits my photography just fine. Please feel free to view my a7 folder on flickr for examples of what can be achieved with vintage glass.


α7

As far as I'm concerned those images are in no way inferior to what can be captured with a DSLR, and actually many of them could not have been done with a lot of DSLR's since the lenses I used would have issues when you attempt to adapt them to cameras with mirrors due to the larger flange/focal distance required for the mirrorbox assembly.

Mirrorless cameras currently have many great offerings to choose from and the market is growing all the time. I hope in 2016 we will finally see some serious mirrorless cameras from Canon and Nikon, as well as (possibly) a medium format MC from Fuji. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what you shoot with as long as your images are coming out the way you want and you are pleased with the results. Your artistic vision and skill as a photographer will factor far more into the final image then whether the camera you have has a mirror or not. MC or DSLR...plenty of great choices either way. Hope this helped.


----------



## Gary A.

I echo everything f/otographer stated. I did miss the disadvantage of EVF updates. But since my first mirrorless camera, a Panasonic GF1 to Olympus EM5 and EM1 to Fuji XP1 to Fuji EX2 to Fuji XT1 ... Every generation of newer mirrorless the AF and EVF gets better and better. The future is mirrorless.


----------



## tecboy

Some high-end mirrorless cameras do outperform low-end dslrs. However, I don't see any sign that mirrorless will take over dslrs.  The good thing about the dslrs even though, these are bulky is the ergonomic designed.  These feel comfortable to hold and easier to adjust the shutter speed and aperture.  Who knows, someday I may get a mirrorless camera because it is so lightweight and compact.


----------



## Ido

There are many fixed-lens cameras that include both Manual mode and the option to save Raw files.
I personally think that both are not really worth it with a small sensor—say, smaller than the 1" format (maybe down to the 2/3" format, too, with some newer models).
The cameras in this realm that you should be looking at are, in no particular order:

*Sony RX100 series —* Latest is _IV_, which most notably adds 4K video and faster autofocus on top of the already-excellent _III_ model. The one before that, _II_, did not have the nifty and useful pop-up EVF that was introduced with _III_, so I’d suggest either _IV _or _III_. The zoom range on these cameras is modest, but it’s the very popular 24–70 mm equivalent range, which is useful in a lot of situations.
*Panasonic LX100 —* Has a slightly larger sensor than the RX100-series cameras, with a lens of a similar zoom range and maximum aperture. It also has a built-in EVF that doesn’t have to be popped-up to be used. It is physically bigger, though.
*Panasonic FZ1000 —* Perhaps the best option if you need a bigger zoom range, letting you capture more distant subjects. It has a 1" sensor, like the Sony.
*Canon G9 X, G7 X, G5 X, G3 X, G1 X Mark II —* All are considered very good cameras, and they’re all different from one another. Go into more detail about each one to find out. I recommend reading on the DPReview site.
*Ricoh GR; Fujifilm X100 series —* Both of these options are more specialized tools, as they don’t have zoom lenses. The Ricoh has a 28mm-equivalent lens, and the Fujifilm cameras (3—first came the X100, then they added an ‘S’, then they replaced the ‘S’ with a ‘T’) all have the same 35mm-equivalent lens. These have by far the biggest sensors of the bunch (APS-C), and coupled with fast lenses, they are technically the best for shooting in low light. But in general, and especially if you’re just starting out and don’t really know exactly what you need, I’d recommend not buying one of these.


----------



## gsgary

Why do you call them middle ground Sony A7r2 will beat most DSLR's


----------



## f/otographer

tecboy said:


> Some high-end mirrorless cameras do outperform low-end dslrs. However, I don't see any sign that mirrorless will take over dslrs. The good thing about the dslrs even though, these are bulky is the ergonomic designed. These feel comfortable to hold and easier to adjust the shutter speed and aperture.



Tecboy, I don't think it will ever be an issue of MC's 'taking over' DSLR's, but there should be a continuing and growing shift in the market as time goes by. This can lead to a possible shift were MC's outsell DSLR's but that is a ways off and I will give some examples of that in a bit. As I have said the mirrorbox assembly has been researched to death and is pretty much at the end of its developmental cycle. If Canon and Nikon had any major improvements in regards to this we would have already seen it. But the fact is that DSLR's simply have a really, really good focusing system due to 30 years of competitive R and D. The DSLR was designed to be the apex predator for 35mm photography and it reached that status long ago. It is only now, in the last few years, that the removal of the mirror has led to several companies other then Canon and Nikon to develop new technologies and think outside the box in an effort to compete with the DSLR. Sony actually tried to go head to head with Canikon with their own alpha DSLR's after purchasing Minoltas camera division with very mixed results. It wasn't until Sony came out with the forward thinking NEX line that they started to see some steam built up in their camera division. The success of those early NEX cameras and the ones that followed showed Sony that EVF's and on sensor AF would be accepted by photographers. That has led to the excellent selection of a7's we have today.

So with companies like Sony, Fuji and the Panasonic/Olympus rapidly pushing out new technology with almost every camera launch we should see mirrorless slowly gain traction as it is picked up by more and more photographers. This is in stark contrast to Canon and Nikon putting out almost the same old tired DSLR with every 'new' release. Just think, in just over two years Sony went from the original a7 model to having put out two more models (a7R, a7S) and then also upgraded them to significantly improved Mark II models of each one. _In just over two years_. Compare that to Canon who took 5 years to bring out the 7D mark II. I think the rapid, hungry pace of the mirrorless manufactures have caught Canon and Nikon off guard who still think its business as usual and slow updates are acceptable. This is one of the big reasons I think people get attracted to mirrorless. Not just the smaller footprint and new technology, but the apparent willingness of these companies to push the envelope and out develop each other as fast as possible.

Back to MC's outselling DSLR's, it could happen if you look at several different factors. The main thing is that for serious amateur and pro photogs the DSLR has been the apex predator for a while now and the weapon of choice for serious, affordable imagery. Great AF, wonderful lens selection and reliability have indeed made them excellent choices so the installed user base of the DSLR is currently very high. MC's have only been out for a short time but they are gaining in popularity. Because many shooters are 'invested' in a system due to the cost of lenses they will be reluctant to change even thought MC's are showing promise. But as time goes by more and more shooters may decide that MC's are for them for any of the number reasons that MC's are perceived to have an advantage over DSLR's. Then there is the fact that older, dyed in the wool DSLR users will be exiting the field and younger, more open minded photographers will take their place. Especially the generation of children who have grown up with smartphones and tablets in their hands. These shooters are used to looking at a little electronic screen and when they look into their camera view finder they will feel right at home seeing another little electronic screen. It will be second nature to them and they will most likely regard an optical viewfinder (which shows them little to no info about how their image will look) incredibly archaic and wonder how we ever shot that way.

But the really sad fact is that all of this may be an incredibly moot argument. If you look at all of the new camera technologies assaulting the market now then one can surmise what will actually happen is that the entire gestalt of photography will change completely. In other words, in the time needed for MC's to actually overtake DSLR's the entire way photography is handled may irrevocably change. Look at the emerging drone technologies, the incredible new Light L16 camera, the ability to choose DOF after a shot is taken....the list goes on. Smartphones have already become the default camera option for most people and in a way we have entered what Henri Cartier Bresson wished for in having a 'golden age' of photography. Anybody can shoot anything, anywhere, anytime. And with increasing video resolution pulling perfectly good still images from 4k video is already a thing. So what about when 16k video hits? Future cameras may be simply small, high quality 16k video recorders that constantly record burst videos so still images can be taken from them later. Then in post processing you choose your focal point and however much of a shallow depth of field as you desire. Add to this the ability to mount these things on drones or hand them out to reporters or wedding guests and in all honesty the way we shoot in a few years could be radically changed. Photography is one of the Arts most tied to technology and for better or worse this is our heritage and our future. Sure, there will always be those fringe elements who shoot collodion wet plate or pinhole cameras, but the market is going to follow the trends.

Lastly, just a quick thing about the ergonomics of a camera. This is a very subjective thing and will differ radically with each individual. You cant say one type of camera is better in this regard then another, except on a personal basis. For instance my a7 with battery grip, FD adapter and a Canon FL 55/1.2 lens handles (for me) a hundred time better then my friends 5D (body only) and 50/1.8 attached. I picked up his camea and it was bulky and unbalanced. It really felt awkward in my hand. My set up with aperture control on the lens and ISO on the back dial makes my shooting super fast (again, for me). Someone else may find my set up horrible. But I have found the more traditional (retro) style of mirrorless cameras, especially those that mimic the old 35mm film cameras, much better ergonomically then modern DSLR's. But as I said, its all subjective.


----------



## tecboy

If canon takes out the mirror chamber of the dslrs and keep the ergonomically designs, then I will buy it.  For now, I rather stick with a dslr.


----------



## f/otographer

I think removing the mirror from a couple of Canon DSLR's would be a great step for them. It would give the existing userbase of Canon a chance to use all their lenses with an EVF and see if they like it enough to make the jump over to a real Canon mirrorless (if they ever make one). But if Canon does indeed make a serious mirrorless it better not use the existing EOS EF mount. It would be a horrible mistake to tie your shiny new MC (which could be your main camera for the next several decades) to a mount that is already over 30 years old. Canons new MC needs a fresh new mount and a new line of modern, optimized lenses. Of course there should be an adapter  to use the old EF lenses and I fully expect they would offer this as well. But there also needs to be a new line of lenses available as well to optimize the shorter flange distance. I am sure this is why Canon and Nikon both have been reluctant to 'get serious' about mirrorless. It will involve them starting over from scratch with a new lens lineup and I am sure neither company wants to give up the advantage of their existing, dominating lens offerings.


----------



## tecboy

f/otographer said:


> I think removing the mirror from a couple of Canon DSLR's would be a great step for them. It would give the existing userbase of Canon a chance to use all their lenses with an EVF and see if they like it enough to make the jump over to a real Canon mirrorless (if they ever make one). But if Canon does indeed make a serious mirrorless is better not use the existing EOS EF mount. It would be a horrible mistake to tie your shiny new MC (which could be your main camera for the next several decades) to a mount that is already over 30 years old. Canons new MC needs a fresh new mount and a new line of modern, optimized lenses. Of course there should be an adapter  to use the old EF lenses and I fully expect they would offer this as well. But there also needs to be a new line of lenses available as well to optimize the shorter flange distance. I am sure this is why Canon and Nikon both have been reluctant to 'get serious' about mirrorless. It will involve them starting over from scratch with a new lens lineup and I am sure neither company wants to give up the advantage of their existing, dominating lens offerings.



It's good to know.


----------



## beagle100

f/otographer said:


> I think removing the mirror from a couple of Canon DSLR's would be a great step for them. It would give the existing userbase of Canon a chance to use all their lenses with an EVF and see if they like it enough to make the jump over to a real Canon mirrorless (if they ever make one). But if Canon does indeed make a serious mirrorless it better not use the existing EOS EF mount. It would be a horrible mistake to tie your shiny new MC (which could be your main camera for the next several decades) to a mount that is already over 30 years old. Canons new MC needs a fresh new mount and a new line of modern, optimized lenses. Of course there should be an adapter  to use the old EF lenses and I fully expect they would offer this as well. But there also needs to be a new line of lenses available as well to optimize the shorter flange distance. I am sure this is why Canon and Nikon both have been reluctant to 'get serious' about mirrorless. It will involve them starting over from scratch with a new lens lineup and I am sure neither company wants to give up the advantage of their existing, dominating lens offerings.



I'm using a Canon mirrorless !
a $100 pocket camera !!




Untitled by c w, on Flickr

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless/


----------



## f/otographer

beagle100 said:


> I'm using a Canon mirrorless !
> a $100 pocket camera !!



Lol, nice. Its true the EOS M is indeed a Canon mirrorless but it wasn't a serious effort on their part. Its a fine little camera to be sure, but all of the EOS M models to have been released are very pricey for what you get and consistently don't stack up to the competition. Its almost as if Canon said "Fine...I guess if we _have_ to put out some type of mirrorless then here's the M."

There was no intention of it ever challenging Canon's own DSLR's as a serious enthusiast or professional camera, much less the mirrorless competition. But that may change in 2016 as Canon seems to be working on (according to rumors) a serious apsc and possibly FF mirrorless camera. I truly hope this is the case, as I am a longtime Canon fan and only shoot Sony right now since they make the camera I need. A serious, rugged, weather proof Canon mirrorless with a great new line of Canon lenses designed with the enthusiast and working professional in mind would, I believe, be a huge hit for them. Here's hoping.


----------



## beagle100

f/otographer said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using a Canon mirrorless !
> a $100 pocket camera !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, nice. Its true the EOS M is indeed a Canon mirrorless but it wasn't a serious effort on their part. Its a fine little camera to be sure, but all of the EOS M models to have been released are very pricey for what you getg.
Click to expand...


yes, I've heard some mirrorless models (including Canon) cost more than $100
But spending more money on a camera, say  $200  or  $300 is very "pricey"  for a camera  - right?
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless


----------

