Thread: Mirrorless cameras

Who is using a mirrorless as opposed to a DSLR. Looking at getting the Sony A7iii for travel and hunting. I know a couple are using the Olympus EM range. Anyone using the Sony's?

Any recommendations on cameras and on tutorials to get better at taking photos.

I've got a Sony 6000 and very happy with it. Used it on a big Euro trip about two years back and did the biz nicely. It wears an "18-200" lens which I think equates to 24-300 35 equiv. I have a prime for it but the zoom lives almost exclusively on it as it's so flexible. The only issue with the big-body zoom lens is the onboard flash gets slightly obscured by the lens.

Like most modern cameras, it has far more features than you'd ever use.

I think the only real downside to my panasonic mirrorless is the number of batteries you need for a full day shoot.
And of course like all cameras - the better the lens the better the pic.

I have an Olympus EPL5 which I use for underwater stuff. It is a budget model and now a bit outdated, but I like it. If you're coming from DSLR, mirrorless won't be a problem for you, same principles. If you're coming from compact digital, then there is a learning curve and don't forget that lenses can cost more than the camera!

Originally Posted by paddygonebush

Who is using a mirrorless as opposed to a DSLR. Looking at getting the Sony A7iii for travel and hunting. I know a couple are using the Olympus EM range. Anyone using the Sony's?

Any recommendations on cameras and on tutorials to get better at taking photos.

Don't think you can go wrong with a full frame Sony, especially if you are going to do film as well.

I am looking at an Alpha 6300 or a second hand A7... want to get some film done.

Originally Posted by Barefoot

I think the only real downside to my panasonic mirrorless is the number of batteries you need for a full day shoot.

AFAIK battery life and autofocus speed (tracking moving objects etc) are the only areas where DSLRs really still have an advantage over mirrorless, for everything else a mirrorless with equivalent sensor is on the same level now while being smaller and lighter.

Haven't had one myself, just a quick play with an Olympus which seemed nice enough but I know a couple of professional landscape photographers that use the Sony A7r and rate it.

I have been using an early sony mirrorless nex-3 for a few years now nice and compact, can buy adapters to fit all kinds of cheap manual focus SLR lens if needed. I run an autofocus sigma lens on mine very happy with it

I'm using a Sony A7R2, have an A6000, and used to use an Olympus OMD EM1. There's definitely a size/weight advantage when using wide angle through to normal focal length lenses compared to a DSLR (with full frame - m43 is way smaller but compromised for low light/high ISO). The lens size advantage seems to be less evident with longer focal lengths, however the body size/weight advantage still remains.

Particularly with the Mark 3 Sonys, I see no advantage in DSLRs unless you want a physically bigger camera body. The new batteries and faster focus system in the Mk 3's eliminates the weaknesses @GravelBen points out. I'm considering upgrading my A7R2 to a A7R3 mainly for the battery life improvement for time lapse work.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by The Claw

The new batteries and faster focus system in the Mk 3's eliminates the weaknesses @GravelBen points out. I'm considering upgrading my A7R2 to a A7R3 mainly for the battery life improvement for time lapse work.

I'd say they've improved the weaknesses but not eliminated them - even a A7R3 ($5300 ) still only has around half the rated battery life of many DSLRs (CIPA rating 650 shots vs 1230 for a Nikon D750 or 1840 for a D850). Having said that the old D7000 can do over 2000 shots on a charge with my use and its official rating is 1050, so if they beat their official rating by a similar amount its probably still heaps for most people and as you say it has other advantages with the smaller size and weight.

Similar story with the AF from what I've heard - it may not be as good at speed and tracking as the better Nikon and Canon DSLRS (which is part of the reason professional sports photographers are still almost exclusively using those) but its plenty good enough for most people now.

The biggest advantage of Canikon over mirrorless gang is actually lens costs.

Most mirrorless companies sell bodies at enticing prices. Sony leads the charge. For similar image quality and features, Sony Full Frame bodies (or body with kit lens) are about 20% cheaper. IF you are going to stick to the kit lens then by all means get Sony.

As soon as you venture into better lenses you will realise Sony is a big trap. All their mid quality lenses, both zoom and prime, are way more expensive than Canonikon.

See for example 70-200 F2.8 IS L. The canon Mark II version is currently 1799 USD (with $300 phasing out discount), the new Mark III is $2099. The Sony equivalent 70-200 G Master is $2799 USD.

If you are interested in the exercise, also check 24-70, 100 macro, 85/1.2 (or 1.4), 50 1.8, 24 1.4 etc. All Sony FE lenses are very very expensive. And not really better than Canikon high end stuff. In fact for the high end tele lenses, such as 300 F2.8, 400 F2.8, 500 F4, 600 F4, etc, Canikon has no real competition.

This calculus applies to hobbyists with limited money or professionals who have to manage their costs of doing business. Rich hobbyists need not to be concerned with the price difference.

Lastly, for the lens competition between Canon and Nikon, Canon has more wins from 135mm onwards, Nikon has more wins under 135mm (except for macro, which Canon wins with the 100 IS L Macro and the 500D super macro lens).

I am a Canon shooter with two bodies and way more lenses than I actually use. I also shoot with a Sony Nex5 and a5000 full spectrum for IR and UV. I also have a Canon 6D infrared (590nm) and a Nikon D200 full spectrum somewhere.
My lenses range from the 11-24 WA for the Canon through to the 600f4.

I shoot wildlife, birds and landscapes. Nothing in the mirrorless range compares to a DSLR with a 600 f4 on the end.
As far as landscape goes, you can get by with almost anything these days as the software has taken a lot of the work out of the gear ie. I can comfortably shoot a landscape using a 70-200 and stitch the images together.

For travel and hunting I would look at bridge cameras rather than mirrorless or DSLR - some of those things have massive zoom capabilities, great image quality in a really small and light package.

Canon SX60HS, Nikon P9000 come to mind but I'm sure there a bunch more out there.

I tried both fuji and samsung after being a nikon DSLR user for many years...

Ended up going back to DSLR main reasons:

Battery life
Sensor size
Lens cost
And my big hands found the camera and buttons way too small

Anyone tried the new EOS R from Canon or the Nikon Z6/Z7 yet?

Ended up getting the Sony A7iii. Cracking nice camera. Learning the ropes with it.

as far as I'm aware (ex semi prof photographer ) i made a leap from mirrored to mirrorless cameras and never looked back whilst travelling. era sony or fuji the micro sensor in pan/oly is limited for various reasons. Also lenses are way cheaper on sony / fuji. but its really what feels good to you, if you don't like it you won't carry it so that defeats the point. I used a canon 1d before the fuji and was scared to death that it would be terrible drop but people haven't even noticed on the consumer end and i far enjoy carrying it as its no longer by entire hand luggage weight on planes haha. as far as batteries are concerned they weigh nothing buy the after market cheaper ones with a higher capacity and tuck em away happy shooting