Mirrorless Cameras Opportunity or Necessary Evil?

I think these questions won't be answered, because I see many "feelings" in the statements and less real testing. However I think to test AF performance is something most people can't do because there are so many variables in the testing setup and to many use cases where AF systems differ in performance. 

Questions about what subjects the user is shooting, the gear and the environment needs to be the same and then we have the problem that DSLR and Mirrorless are using different lenses. Setup of the System (AF-C vs AF-S and so on). Or if the DSLR AF workflow is not applicable for mirrorless... 

In the end, if people like their gear, why should they switch? But we all know, Mirrorless is the future, because most big players already stopping to develop new DSLR bodies and put all they dev. money into mirrorless. 

58 minutes ago, pooley said:

 

Early mirrorless may not offer too much against a good standard DSLR, but the latest incarnations are certainly superior, both in IQ and especially AF. Thats using real world experience, not reading spec sheets. You just need to look at what the top level birds in flight shooters are now using, and its mostly the Sony A1, followed by the R5 with the Z9 now creeping into the bags of those who wanted to remain with Nikon. DSLRs are pretty much out of that game now. 

If Adam you think that the likes of the A1 cannot compete with a D850 topside then I really believe you need to revisit how it is set up. 

The main question over the AF though underwater is do we need the latest and greatest, as in general the subjects are slower moving than we get topside?

It remains to be seen if I made the right choice, but I wanted one system for above and below water - only time will tell

Mike

I think it is necessary to be quite specific when speaking about performance of mirrorless AF and speak of specific models rather than just Sony Nikon, Canon.  It's really only 1 or 2 of the latest high end models in each brand that are achieving the AF performance.  In Sony the A1 seems to stand alone, the A7IV series is not as good, but is significantly better than all the rest.  No doubt lesser models will inherit the technology down the track but for now it's a fairly limited number of models.

As for whether the very best AF is needed - it certainly can't hurt, sure you can work around poorer AF, but better AF in Macro or for shooting skittish fish has to take some of the frustration out of this type of photography.

I've only used an R5 and A1 so can't comment on other models, and out of those 2 the  A1 is superior. I'd still rate the R5 better than the D500 topside though, but like I said, I'm not sure exactly how it will transfer to underwater work. I'll do some wide angle sharks in guadaloupe later this year, but probably won't get to do some macro until after that to do a proper comparison. 

I'm just  hoping it'll help with that last few percent  of AF ability missing  from the D500 (which I do still think is an incredible underwater camera by the way.)

Mike

Something I heard recently when taking a class on shooting sunballs - Very few EVF's can show the remaining content of the scene when presented with a sunball.   Not a problem with OVF, but can be a major issue with EVF's.  I wish I could remember the one camera which worked OK - either the Sony A1 or the top Canon.

Something I heard recently when taking a class on shooting sunballs - Very few EVF's can show the remaining content of the scene when presented with a sunball.   Not a problem with OVF, but can be a major issue with EVF's.  I wish I could remember the one camera which worked OK - either the Sony A1 or the top Canon.

One of the great advantages of mirrorless cameras is that with their kit lenses (16-50 mm Nikon APS-C sensor, 15-45 mm Canon M APS-C sensor, 15-45 mm Fuji APS-C sensor, 16-50 mm Sony APS-C sensor, 14-42 mm Olympus and Panasonic micro 4/3 sensor) , behind a flat port, you can use wet lenses such as the Nauticam WWL-1. These kit lenses have a greater length in wide-angle and tele positions, with a shorter length in the intermediate focal lengths.

I asked Nauticam if the kit lenses of the reflex cameras, such as the 18-55mm, could be used with the Nauticam WWL-1 and they answer no, without explain me the reason for the incompatibility with the wet lens.

For me this great advantage of mirrorless cameras is enough to prefer them instead of reflex cameras.

Here is a far better comparison of DSLR vs mirrorless AF than this thread: https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/dslr-versus-mirrorless.html

BTW the rumored next FW update for the Z9 is supposed to have an AF improvement - we shall see!!!

2 minutes ago, Tom_Kline said:

Here is a far better comparison of DSLR vs mirrorless AF than this thread: https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/dslr-versus-mirrorless.html

BTW the rumored next FW update for the Z9 is supposed to have an AF improvement - we shall see!!!

Wow, some fabulous images. Problem is, Tom, they're all not underwater 

I really would like a Z9 though. And Land Rover Defender (new one). And a Ferrari. A megayacht would be kinda cool too.

13 minutes ago, TimG said:

Wow, some fabulous images. Problem is, Tom, they're all not underwater 

I really would like a Z9 though. And Land Rover Defender (new one). And a Ferrari. A megayacht would be kinda cool too.

Yes, there is a need to extrapolate from non-underwater users! The Z9 is not all that bad in cost. The housings, something else....

What will be interesting is to see which aspects of the tech in the Z9 end up in the next gen cameras. Nikon has already indicated that this will be the case. Possibly one of these will be better for warm water UWP (smaller and less expensive a housing). However in the post-covid world we may have to get used to much higher prices. :<<

9 hours ago, Pedro said:

I asked Nauticam if the kit lenses of the reflex cameras, such as the 18-55mm, could be used with the Nauticam WWL-1 and they answer no, without explain me the reason for the incompatibility with the wet lens.

As I understand it, the big requirement for compatibility with wet lenses is that the entrance pupil is placed well forward inside the lens. Given the same angle of view, the further back within the lens you put it, the wider you need to make the exit glass of the wet lens in front of it in order to avoid vignetting, and this quickly becomes impractical. I know very little about lens design, but it's an interesting observation that all those small collapsible zooms with relatively narrow maximum apertures - M43 12-42mm, APS-C 15-45mm/16-50mm from Sony, Nikon, Canon and Fuji, Sony 28-60mm FF - have a forward-placed entrance pupil (indicated by a relatively small front element) and all use a mirrorless mount. I'm guessing that they all use the same or similar lens design, and for whatever reason, this design requires a short flange focal distance, making it incompatible with an SLR camera's mirror box.

On 6/21/2022 at 1:56 AM, Interceptor121 said:

I think whoever is putting those messages out there must not consider the thousands of photos of sunburst taken with mirrorless and even compact cameras
 

Pretty sure it was Berkley White.   And he knows what he talks about.

Pretty sure it was Berkley White.   And he knows what he talks about.

A lot of people think they do

The question is if this is or not a mirrorless user

I shoot plenty of sunbursts I have non problem and on land I have no problem either

There are many evf implentations to overcome pretty much any limit but there are poor implementations that go dark

It really depends

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have used the Nikon D800 for about 7 years and still own it. And I've been using the first generation mirrorless of z6 for about two years now.
The lens experience is F mount for Sigma 15MM, Nikon 8-15, and 105MM.

Both models are rated as having poor AF... However, it is not a big problem at a wide angle. Macro photography requires patience in both models.

I don't have experience with cameras like D500 or A1 or Z9, but I think AF will be more comfortable and easy to shoot.

Mirrorless has seen a lot of talk about the difficulty of photographing the sun. My experience is that EVF is harder to see the sun than OVF, but mirrorless doesn't mean it can't be filmed. Once I got used to exposure setting, I felt that there was no significant difference between mirrorless and DSLR.

In fact, I replaced the mirrorless at DSLR, but nothing much has changed about filming. It doesn't feel like an upgrade or downgray.
The convenience of just the latest model has improved. (Charge C-TYPE, Fast file movement due to fast memory usage)

I think creativity and shooting skills are more important than equipment.

I can feel this way because i am amateur. Its a subjective opinion.

3 minutes ago, Edy park said:

I think creativity and shooting skills are more important than equipment.

Totally agree!

I had the Nikon D800, an older mirror camera, and made the mistake of selling it, as when I review its underwater photos, they were fine, discounting my mistakes.   My current mirror camera also works just fine.

This leads me to ask: Why waste time and money on a mirrorless, with no clear advantages, when some of them reportedly have poor auto-focus and/or underwater white balance?

To me, the evidence says leave mirrorless to evolve for later time, as it is better to enjoy diving, blow bubbles and paparazzi the fish with the camera we have. 

Even if there are shortcomings in certain areas with mirrorless, the biggest advantage to me is portability and the size of housing. I can never see myself carrying a DSLR housing, the fact that the kit lenses can be used and paired with WWL for example to produce great quality image whilst still maintaining a small food print is huge.

I am in the process of buying a Sony A7 IV to replace my A7 III and by all counts it provides a much better AF and obviously video capability that no DSLR can match.

On 6/19/2022 at 4:52 AM, Interceptor121 said:

Sorry about the capital letters

I shoot at night and I can guarantee you that you can’t see a thing in an optical viewfinder in really low light because it is not illuminated

In fact all the DSLR people are there with their screens shining in live view

While the human eye can adapt to darkness I can guarantee you that your camera will see things you just won’t see

With regards to the dynamic range of the display that is frankly another myth yes a screen will have ten stops dynamic range but at the end your optical viewfinder has no dynamic range is just a piece of glass and you will not base the exposure on what you see but on the meter reading the image may or not clip depending on the sensor

In fact clipping if a highlight on the screen doesn’t even indicate that the image will clip in addition most mirrorless cameras have options to dissociate the display from exposure and this makes the composition much easier

On the focus front no comment that for me is mostly a red herring and actually focus aid in an evf are better than an ovf anyways

 

I have the impression you don’t actually use a mirrorless camera and a quick test is not the same in fact one of your examples about the camera not able to show a dark image sounds just incorrect as Sony as live view boost since more than 8 years now

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Umm no.

Across several hundred night dives with either a D500 or D850 I've never turned on the equiv. of live view. There are certainly situations where someone may shoot in a low light/darkened environment (hold of a wreck comes to mind given recent experiences), but many times in these situations there is some ambient light, focus light, or off camera lighting being utilized.

I would still suggest that there is a fairly straightforward test case that clearly illustrates the current delta between high end DSLRs and mirrorless options. The A1 may be an exception (I have not had an opportunity to try this yet) but shooting blackwater with a D850 or D500 w/60mm lens (low light, fast moving subjects) will demonstrate where mirrorless still lags a bit.

This is not just a stated opinion - if you talk to any of the folks who offer black water diving and ask what kind of gear they are seeing the most successful results from, (to date) the answer continues to be DSLRs with lenses like the 60mm (conversely, also illustrative of the types of systems people struggle with on a blackwater dives). 

Again, the A1 may be the first mirrorless system that can provide similar performance, I haven't seen it yet in this type of environment.

3 hours ago, newdiver said:

Even if there are shortcomings in certain areas with mirrorless, the biggest advantage to me is portability and the size of housing. I can never see myself carrying a DSLR housing, the fact that the kit lenses can be used and paired with WWL for example to produce great quality image whilst still maintaining a small food print is huge.

I am in the process of buying a Sony A7 IV to replace my A7 III and by all counts it provides a much better AF and obviously video capability that no DSLR can match.

@newdiver

Interesting... my daughter was shooting with an A7III, and now shoots with A7R4 (slightly older generation, I know) - still not close enough in AF performance (shooting macro) compared to either my D500 or D850.

The difference is tangible and obvious when you shoot them side by side on same subjects (which we did recently and will be doing again in a couple of weeks).

1 hour ago, oneyellowtang said:

Umm no.

Across several hundred night dives with either a D500 or D850 I've never turned on the equiv. of live view. There are certainly situations where someone may shoot in a low light/darkened environment (hold of a wreck comes to mind given recent experiences), but many times in these situations there is some ambient light, focus light, or off camera lighting being utilized.

I would still suggest that there is a fairly straightforward test case that clearly illustrates the current delta between high end DSLRs and mirrorless options. The A1 may be an exception (I have not had an opportunity to try this yet) but shooting blackwater with a D850 or D500 w/60mm lens (low light, fast moving subjects) will demonstrate where mirrorless still lags a bit.

This is not just a stated opinion - if you talk to any of the folks who offer black water diving and ask what kind of gear they are seeing the most successful results from, (to date) the answer continues to be DSLRs with lenses like the 60mm (conversely, also illustrative of the types of systems people struggle with on a blackwater dives). 

Again, the A1 may be the first mirrorless system that can provide similar performance, I haven't seen it yet in this type of environment.

If you use a focus light than nothing matters for focus anyway

Most shooters in UW world come from DLSR the migration is slow that does not mean there are advantages and if there is really low light mirrorless actually works better as the camera does better than your eye in the dark

4 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

If you use a focus light than nothing matters for focus anyway

Most shooters in UW world come from DLSR the migration is slow that does not mean there are advantages and if there is really low light mirrorless actually works better as the camera does better than your eye in the dark

Yeah... no.

One example... side by side shooting in dark conditions (A7R4 and D850) - D850 performed better (in a hold of a wreck). I've actually seen some Sony shooters turn off their Live View in some dark conditions because it absolutely screws up your night vision...