Mirrorless Cameras Opportunity or Necessary Evil?

Strange discussion here… 

If you are satisfied with your camera why in the world should you replace it („never change a running system!“)??? Just for the sake of having something new or impressing fellow photographers with the latest equipment? Come on …

If you upgrade* from a compact camera or if your camera/housing/top lens is broken/flooded/stolen mirrorless may be the smartest option. Unless you want to take the risk of buying second hand and invest in a system that is probably vanishing 

Nikon, Canon, Sony. But no one talks about Panasonic or OM System (ex-Olympus). They probably have the longest experience with mirrorless and for sure phantastic lenses for uw-use. And their top of the line cameras are very fine, IMHO.

Jock

* Re upgrade: I was fascinated (and kind of frustrated at the same time) when I worked on a pic I took with my carry-always-with-me Oly Tough TG5 last week in Antwerp. It was a photo from a decorative marble ball inside the train station in low light. The (raw) file was not too sharp and with lots of noise. Then I processed it with the free test version of DXO PureRaw2 - and could not believe my eyes. No more noise, sharpness like from an expensive „pro“ lens. (I am on holiday now and can‘t upload the pics, they are on my Mac back home.)

So I am not sure if going from a good compact cam to a dslr is really an upgrade for the average photographer in terms of picture quality. But this may be is good for a new thread. 

15 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

There will never be an EVF that has enough DR for a backlit shot with the sunball in it

I didn't mention sunballs?

For what is is worth, with an optical viewfinder, I can shoot and compose sunball shots. 

However, what I actually said was:

16 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

For example, until there is an EVF that can cope with the DR between an unlit foreground and a brightly lit ambient background,

Which you seem to have extrapolated to mean sunballs? 

32 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

I didn't mention sunballs?

For what is is worth, with an optical viewfinder, I can shoot and compose sunball shots. 

However, what I actually said was:

Which you seem to have extrapolated to mean sunballs? 

The issue with photography in general is that whatever you see in your camera exposure meter,  clipping is a reflection of the camera jpeg. This is because you see an sRGB image of your raw data. The camera uses this for everything including focusing for a mirrorless camera.

sRGB screens are limited to a maximum of 10 stops of dynamic range and generally those on cameras may fall short although they may be very bright they do not necessarily have the required contrast ratio.

Normally a sunset/sunrise without the sunball in the frame can exceed 10 stops DR with the sunball part of the image on the screen will clip. This is a limitation of the screen not necessarily the sensor or anything underlying.

So there will be situations where if the camera tries to protect highlights the shadows are pitch black, if you go multi meter the EVF will clip but may not necessarily clip in real life and you will see more of the shadows. If you spot meter on the shadows you will see the shadows clearly however you need to make sure your RAW does not eventually clip and you will not know just by looking at the screen

When it comes to optical viewfinder the viewfinder is a window it has no dynamic range per se however the eye works very differently from an EVF and is able to focus on the shadows and ignore bright areas after a quick scan of the frame.

So the difference is the eye not the OVF and the way the eye works. In effect the eye works like the camera in spot metering where only a little part is getting attention and focus while the rest is just cached from memory sort of speak

I have that issue when I shoot high dynamic range landscapes which have far more dynamic range than anything in water as water reduces contrast. So I use spot metering on the shadows and then make a call on the clipping point based on zebras. This is very much the same you would do with a DSLR when you compose trust the meter or maybe not and then review there is no real difference.

I do not know exactly which scenes you say have a problem and neither I know which camera you have used and how was set and there is actually some variability however I cannot see how this is a deal breaker for practical use or I would not be able like many others to compose the shots. As a matter of fact we all do just fine

Adam, this whole thread reads a little like you trying to talk yourself out of expensive upgrade

In all seriousness -- the A7SIII doesn't bring any amazing new capabilities -- it's low light performance is pretty much on par with your D850.

And the case for the new generations of mirrorless cameras form Canon, Nikon and Sony is quite straight-forward: video capabilities. Let's face it -- the photography market is imploding. Pretty much everyone buying cameras these days is filming video in addition to or instead of photography. Both professionals and hobbyists.

It's interesting we're not having any discussion about whether mirrorless cameras are a worthwhile upgrade when in comes to video. Probably because the answer is so glaringly obvious. 

Adam, this whole thread reads a little like you trying to talk yourself out of expensive upgrade [emoji3]
In all seriousness -- the A7SIII doesn't bring any amazing new capabilities -- it's low light performance is pretty much on par with your D850.
And the case for the new generations of mirrorless cameras form Canon, Nikon and Sony is quite straight-forward: video capabilities. Let's face it -- the photography market is imploding. Pretty much everyone buying cameras these days is filming video in addition to or instead of photography. Both professionals and hobbyists.
It's interesting we're not having any discussion about whether mirrorless cameras are a worthwhile upgrade when in comes to video. Probably because the answer is so glaringly obvious. 

Video capability is one of the reasons I decided to move to the mirrorless body. It's far superior to what the earlier Nikon bodies are capable of.

Anyone who's planning to try both photography and video is going to lean to the mirrorless bodies. As I mentioned earlier,  for folks who are happy with their current system for photography and who have no interest in video I think that there's little reason to upgrade at the moment given the cost.

Jon

2 hours ago, dreifish said:

In all seriousness -- the A7SIII doesn't bring any amazing new capabilities -- it's low light performance is pretty much on par with your D850.

Hmm....I've shot both back to back and disagree. It is producing out-of-the-camera cleaner images at ISO12800 than my D850 at ISO5000 - so I think it is pretty good! 

I'm not talking myself out of anything - just disagreeing with Massimo's article's conclusion. To repeat...as and when mirrorless cameras offer me capabilities and performance that is better for me, I will upgrade. I do not believe that time is now. 

I agree that video argument for mirrorless is more compelling, but I do not shoot much video. This thread is also about Massimo's article - which doesn't mention video either!

On 6/28/2022 at 8:58 AM, adamhanlon said:

Hmm....I've shot both back to back and disagree. It is producing out-of-the-camera cleaner images at ISO12800 than my D850 at ISO5000 - so I think it is pretty good! 

I'm not talking myself out of anything - just disagreeing with Massimo's article's conclusion. To repeat...as and when mirrorless cameras offer me capabilities and performance that is better for me, I will upgrade. I do not believe that time is now. 

I agree that video argument for mirrorless is more compelling, but I do not shoot much video. This thread is also about Massimo's article - which doesn't mention video either!

I was about to say Sony denoises RAW files but Nikon does the same after all it is still a sony sensor

For me personally, even with theoretically unlimited money (which isn't the case!) I still am struggling to see the use case for mirrorless underwater yet. The advantages are simply not great enough (for underwater!) to sell all your gear cheaply, and then re-buy everything at a premium (cause no one is selling their mirrorless used). Even if money was no object, for Nikon at least, the lenses just aren't there. I believe even their new macro lens has been touted as optically great, but slow at focusing.

So say you're on a good DSLR kit, and you sell that for £x, then you re-buy everything brand new for perhaps double, are you *really* getting your moneys worth then? Lenses and everything have to be bought.

From a technical standpoint, I see the advantage of using a digital viewfinder, or even the back of the screen, as it makes shooting from the hip a tonne easier. There may even be some weight and size savings!

However, I had my RX100ii, and I wouldn't say I exceeded the camera's capability, but I struggled in a fair few situations, particularly around distance from subjects (skittish ones) and focusing in dark environments. Whereas with my DSLR it doesn't have any of those problems. I'm going to be honest, it was A LOT easier using the RX100ii, small, lightweight, easy to snoot with, easy to handle. Mirrorless unfortunately doesn't seem to offer that in buckets, I think I'd be willing to give mirrorless a go if they could make them small and agile like the RX100, but laws of physics etc.

I am 100% going to mirrorless when the time is right, but right now, it's far too expensive to switch from DSLR and does not provide enough advantages. Perhaps someone who wants their first bit of prosumer kit would be the target audience. I have however been seeing a lot more DSLR kits up for sale, so I think it's fair to say people still have an absolute tonne of money to spend on new toys  

18 minutes ago, sinetwo said:

However, I had my RX100ii, and I wouldn't say I exceeded the camera's capability, but I struggled in a fair few situations, particularly around distance from subjects (skittish ones) and focusing in dark environments.

RX100 II had contrast-detection autofocus. Modern mirrorless cameras (with the exception of Panasonic and some entry-level Olympus models) offer phase-detection autofocus that is similar to, and in some cases exceeds, the capabilities of DSLRs.

19 minutes ago, sinetwo said:

I'm going to be honest, it was A LOT easier using the RX100ii, small, lightweight, easy to snoot with, easy to handle. Mirrorless unfortunately doesn't seem to offer that in buckets, I think I'd be willing to give mirrorless a go if they could make them small and agile like the RX100, but laws of physics etc.

Something like an A7C + 24mm f/2.8 + WWL-C is hardly any bigger than an RX100 rig, while offering you a 24MP full-frame sensor. No DSLR system can match this.

On 6/28/2022 at 3:58 AM, adamhanlon said:

Hmm....I've shot both back to back and disagree. It is producing out-of-the-camera cleaner images at ISO12800 than my D850 at ISO5000 - so I think it is pretty good! 
 

Are you viewing the images at equivalent magnification? With 1/4th the pixels, the Sony will of course sook cleaner if you're you're reviewing the same number of pixels from both files. But technical measurements tell a different story. Normalized to the same resolution, the Nikon D850 actually has better signal to noise performance. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7SIII-versus-Nikon-D850___1357_1177

If we're talking about JPEGs, then a lot comes down to what noise processing each camera is applying. But you should be able to get equally clean images from the two if processing your own raw files.

I would not use Dxomark when it comes to comapring old tech to new tech. They don't retest old cameras. Hence you don't know if the camera sensor is good today or just was good in the past. 

As I was pointed to, my statement was false. But still:
I would say use https://photonstophotos.net/, there you got the raw data. For example the new generation is better in noise to iso performance but the dynamic range is almost the same. 

I thought Dxomark has a standardised algorythm so it should not change over time?

Hm, I had the impression that the scoreing system is changing over the years. I could be wrong, in this case ignore my post from before. 

EDIT:
Just take a look at Nikon D850 vs Sony A7IV vs (dxomark.com) But I think you might be right, but it should be better to see the results for yourself because the A7 IV seems to have better low light performance and the D850 has an edge in color depth. 

FWIW. After 40+ years of professional photography, above and below water, I no longer own a dSLR. Virtually ALL current digital ('system') cameras are so good that the differences are nuances. Some do do certain things better than others but ALL are extraordinarily capable. Just to think, I spent 25 years shooting film .....