1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll - If you haven’t gone mirrorless yet, what’s holding you back?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Liam Clifford, Jul 26, 2017.

  1. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Are you suggesting that Liam is a young whipper snapper? In the fullness of time he will be right, but not yet.
     
  2. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Did Liam phrase the question or did it come from higher up?
    There are several contributors whose comments in the magazine suggest that they see mirrorless as a technology that will make the SLR obsolete. The SLR didn't make the range-finder obsolete nor did the range-finder make the view camera obsolete. Each, in its time, offered greater convenience than the then current technology, though I don't see that mirrorless cameras are any more convenient than SLRs if the sensor size is to remain the same (24 x 36)*. If one accepts that mirrorless means a smaller sensor then, yes that would be, slightly, more convenient.

    *I know that the apologists for mirrorless will cite the smaller body and lesser weight but in practice the few grammes lost in the body is more than compensated by the weight of a fast zoom lens. As for smaller bodies, I used to get cramp in my fingers holding an OM1 without a winder or motor drive so a smaller body is no blessing.
     
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  3. JohnDuder

    JohnDuder Member

    I think that this si a bit like the old digital/film debate...

    Different things wil lsuit different people, and different caemras suit different types of photography.

    I had an Alpha 7 for over a year before I was familiar enough with it to see it in clear view alongside my Alpha 900. Simply, the 7 does just about everything better. My hands are medium size, so I reckon that things like a D800 or an EOS-1 are bricks. I can use a MFT body happily.

    CSC will have complete credibility when Sony match the Alpha 9 with long, wide aperture glass to match the frame rate and focus - but if you don't need all that, there's little downside, and the available glass - some of it via adaptors from Sony (old Minolta and Alpha lenses), Sigma (all their Art lenses) and generic Chinese firms (every 35mm rangefinder and SLR lens ever) can be interesting.

    The possibility of (effectively) live view for very accurate manual focus in the viewfinder is a deal-clincher for me. Seeing exposure and other effects is a plus, as well.
     
  4. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    Or Nikon v Canon. Or Leica v Contax. Or Medium format v 35mm. Or film v plates. Or - well you get the idea...
     
  5. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    And what do we know about some of that technology? They became niche :)

    Film for example is now a niche product not mainstream anymore. Plate cameras are niche not mainstream.

    MF is even niche

    To define mainstream is where you can't just walk in and purchase in lots of stores.


    I have to say that to switch from dSLR to mirrorless there has to be a bigger pull. Because even basic dSLRs are powerful.

    But I would have thought that to make a mirrorless camera is more cost effective because you can remove all the mechanical parts.

    If cameras go totally wireless in every way and have built in memory then you can total seal the camera to improve weather proofing.

    We will see if camera makers start phasing out the dSLR.

    Very easy to support legacy lenses on full electronic camera bodies. So lens investment would not be lost.

    Where the SLR will live on is in film photography which will still be around in the future as a medium choice for artists like painting etc :)
     
  6. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    I have a mirrorless camera. I love it. But it still plays second fiddle to my DSLR/SLR collection.
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    Nikon and Canon are the current lead brands. Leica and Contax were the lead brands from the 1930s to the end of the 1950s. medium format and 35mm are still in use today. Plates were used from the earliest beginnings of photography until the 1990s. How do you get from there to "niche"?
     
  8. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    They a niche because they are largely no longer used by mainstreem photographers.
    For example.
    If you look at the Leica web site you will be able to see their marketing intent very clearly. Their market is aimed at the very wealthy and preferably those who identify with the "celebrity". They identify with high cost, high quality. Outstanding results and famous photographers.
    This is most certainly a niche market not a commodity one.

    Medim format in both film and digital is aimed and used by those that need those particular attributes, and the few amateurs that aspire to using them. This is moset certainl niche.

    Large format film photography in its various forms, is now firmly seated in the small art and amateur market place. And while some specialist new cameras are still available, new lenses are rarer than hens teeth. It is a market place supported largely by past production. And fanatics.
     
  9. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Everything becomes niche in time but stone axes were once the height of fashion - and for a lot longer than digital cameras. :cool:
     
  10. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Exactly, look at music storage, vinyl is making a comeback but as a niche acquired taste product and it appears high end. Some even connect the turntable to valve designed amps because they feel it gives a richer sound to the playback.

    But the mainstream is download or direct online playback ie digital based.

    Even the CD could in time become niche or even die out because it still at its lower level digital.

    Society seems to have a fondness for analogue system :)

    Possibly because they have always been more real and tangible than the digital versions?

    That is why I think film will survive or resurface like vinyl has in the music area. :)

    Certainly I think LF film has a lot to offer to art photographers. It can using slide film produce what one might call a real world 'stain glass window' product.

    Also totally unique and one off and of course tangible. LOL
     
  11. J H Foto

    J H Foto Well-Known Member

    Have completely changed to mirrorless and would never change
     
  12. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Like "change is inevitable"?
     
  13. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Never say never...
     
  14. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    See my signature
     
  15. J H Foto

    J H Foto Well-Known Member

    Mirrorless gear is so much lighter to carry and again for me does everything I need it to do so great stuff I say.....:)
     
  16. Snorri

    Snorri Well-Known Member

    Bagfull of great and expensive glass... And no optical viewfinder... that said some of the new offerings have pretty good evf.
     
  17. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    I 'went mirrorless' when they first appeared. In fact, I went from film (in the days when there were no alternatives), through digital compacts, DSLRs, and mirrorless, and enjoyed all (or most) of them... to some degree, at least. However, lately I've been increasingly aware of the siren call of a return to film. I did actually continue to shoot some film through the years of digital proliferation, but in truth, very little.

    I'm now finding that the ubiquitous (near) 'perfection' of digital is boring me more and more. I've wasted countless thousands of hours trying to replicate the look of certain film types on digital images, but nothing gets a convincing job done. Some techniques, and some software packages, are better than others, of course, but none of them reaches the ultimate goal. Just when I think that I've got close with a certain recipe, I have only to glance at a film image to realise just how far away it actually is.

    I still have - and, for convenience, will retain - a couple of mirrorless cameras, but since I've recently managed to obtain a MF film camera :eek:, there's now a whole new (to me) realm of film photography to explore!
     
  18. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I have a Canon 6D (FF) and regularly compare it to the Olympus OMD range as I know that one day I will go back to Olympus - I even kept my HG lenses to make it easier to return. However the OM1D plus lenses plus (apparently essential) grip plus spare batteries seems to be a lot more expensive than my Canon and not much easier to carry or use for a solid days shooting and the IQs just do not compare. So I am still buying Canon gear.
     
  19. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    What's "holding me back"? Briefly: less money than sense.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    peterba likes this.
  20. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Well, this means that I have, in some ways, an advantage over you then, Roger. I have a great deal more money than sense.

    Unfortunately, that still does not mean that I have much money... ;)
     
    Roger Hicks likes this.

Share This Page