The beauty of mirrorless cameras

[RichA]

Best to worst:

10. Fuji X100/X10
9. Olympus OM-D
8.5 Fuji X-PRO1
8.25 Olympus EPL-2
8. Sony NEX-7
7.5 Leica X1
7 Pentax Q
6.5 Panasonic GX1
6. Olympus EP-3
5.75 Panasonic GH2
5.5 Panasonic G3
5. Samsung NX200
4.75 Ricoh GXR
4.5 Nikon J1
4.25 Canon G1X
4. Nikon V1
3. Panasonic GF3
1. Pentax K-O1

[Bowser]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:26:51 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Uh, OK...

[Irwell]

"Beauty and folly are old companions"
Ben.Franklin.

[Rich]

Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1n4etq4prswja$.lvp7slcro1o4.dlg@
40tude.net:

But there is a psychological benefit to shooting with something that
appears attractive, that you have to spend a lot of time with. Whether
that translates into better images, I don't know.

[rwalker]

I really don't get this fascination with mirrorless cameras. I prefer
SLRs specifically because I'm looking right through the lens and
seeing what film or sensor is seeing. If mirror vibration is
potentially a problem, I use a tripod. And I've used SLRs from the
Pentax Auto 110 to the Pentax 67 and every size in between.

[Bruce]

rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>I really don't get this fascination with mirrorless cameras. I prefer
>SLRs specifically because I'm looking right through the lens and
>seeing what film or sensor is seeing. If mirror vibration is
>potentially a problem, I use a tripod. And I've used SLRs from the
>Pentax Auto 110 to the Pentax 67 and every size in between.

How much experience do you have with mirrorless cameras?

If very little, or none, how can you possibly expect to understand why
they are so popular?

[nospam]

In article <8pi5j71g39ootp15m...@4ax.com>, rwalker

<rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:

> I really don't get this fascination with mirrorless cameras. I prefer
> SLRs specifically because I'm looking right through the lens and
> seeing what film or sensor is seeing. If mirror vibration is
> potentially a problem, I use a tripod. And I've used SLRs from the
> Pentax Auto 110 to the Pentax 67 and every size in between.

you don't see the advantages of eliminating the mirror? seriously?

[Darrell Larose]

To make a small camera mirrorless is ok, but what was Pentax thinking.
To insist on being able to use K-AF lenses they ended up with a register
distance the same as a dSLR! If I was designing the K-01 I would have
gone with the thin body, new lens mount for a short flange to sensor
distance, and sell an automatic extension tube with the correct register
distance for K-mount lenses. I understand Ricoh/Pentax's logic in not
wanting to have a new series of lenses, but they negate a lot of the
benefits of mirrorless.

As for a Medium-Format mirrorless, I would like a slim retro rangefinder
type of concept. Like a digital Mamiya 7 idea. Just my 2 cents worth.

--
Darrell Larose
_____________________________________________
web: http://DarrellLarose.ca
blog: http://DarrellLarose.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________

[RichA]

On Feb 8, 2:23 pm, rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:59:02 -0800, Irwell <h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:35:57 -0500, Bowser wrote:
>

> >> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:26:51 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>

A tripod has little effect (and may make it worse) on mirror slap
blurring a photo.
There are literally situations where mirror and shutter slap are bad
enough so you can't stop them causing problems. Case in point, using
very long lens with a camera attached. My Nikon D300, even with
mirror lock-up blurred images with a 1000mm lens on a tripod whereas
my Panasonic G1 (much less shutter impact) didn't.

[Bowser]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:23:33 -0500, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com>
wrote:

Here's why I use one:

Small and light bodies

Small and light lenses

viewfinder/LCD shows 100% of the image, with adjustments thanks to
live view

CDAF is surprisingly fast, and there is NEVER a need to "microadjust"

You can move the focus point simply by touching the LCD

And yes, IQ is on par with most DSLRs (APS-C), up to about ISO 1600
(for my cam)

No mirror, no mirror box, no vibration

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying they can totally replace SLRs yet,
but that day is coming.

[Chris Malcolm]

Not just the mirror, but the entire clockwork caboodle of mirror and
shutter curtain. No matter how little vibration these cause, it will
always be possible to choose a focal length beyond which they
significantly degrade detail resolution. Mirror lock up can avoid
mirror vibration problems, but you can't escape the vibration of
opening the mechanical shutter.

Ok, I should have said "can't easily escape" -- no doubt mounting the
lens on a granite tripod would help :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

[nick c]

I've been content to never having jumped off a bridge tied to a bungee
cord and I wonder about the mental condition of others think to do that.
Does that mean I can't question the need or popularity of bungee jumping?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

But that's exactly where live view is better than an optical
viewfinder -- it shows you what the actual *sensor* is seeing, not just
what light is coming through the lens. (Also it can be boosted so you
can see in light you couldn't see in optically.)

It also shows you 100.00% of the image, much more accurately than an
optical system can (and many optical viewfinders don't even try for
100%).

A pivoting LCD can also let you see the viewfinder from a much wider
range of angles.

Using a tripod isn't always possible. Shooting in a club or late-night
jam session is the sort of thing I do where a tripod isn't usually
possible, and mirror slap (and any other source of vibration) is a
serious issue. And tripods don't always solve the problem at
intermediate speeds -- 1/8 or 1/4, say, depending on resonant
frequencies.

They're smaller and lighter than DSLRs, and much more capable than P&S
(also smaller than some of them).

The biggest weakness (and they're clearly working to correct this; see
what Nikon says about their 1 series and Fuji about the latest Pro model
and Olympus about the OM-D) is AF speed and tracking, which you didn't
have at all with many of the SLRs you used (none of the ones you
mentioned have AF). M43 has less good low-light performance than
exceptional cameras like the D700, but they're competitive with DSLRs in
their price range.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[rwalker]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:58:35 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

Just for the record, I have used AF, and digital SLRs. I mentioned
the two I did because they cover the size range.

[Bruce]

If the discussion was about a personal fascination with bungee
jumping, just as this one is about the fascination of using mirrorless
cameras, your complete ignorance of that personal fascination would
disqualify you from being able to make any useful contribution to that
discussion.

Have a nice day.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I figured you had, and then realized it wasn't explicit, just an
inference.

The RB-67 certainly has more mirror slap than smaller cameras!

[nick c]

Oh, the pity of it all. In voicing your opinion of my responding
example, all that you have shown is that you have a very limited amount
of mental acuity. As we go through the vicissitude of life we often
question many things we have not experienced. For you to obtain such a
degree of "personal satisfaction" from just the thought of a mirrorless
camera must have been quite a taxing achievement for you. Alas, you seem
to have an intolerance for those whose opinion may differ from yours.

[rwalker]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:11:38 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>

Almost like shooting a .22 pistol!

[PeterN]

Be kind. We all know that he has extensively tested all of them. We all
understand that this ranking is purely scientific, and made with total
regard for the fact that all cameras are used for the same purpose.

--
Peter

[PeterN]

On 2/7/2012 9:00 PM, Rich wrote:
<snip>

>I don't know.

Perhaps the most factual statement you have ever made.

--
Peter