Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Mirrorless, Interchangeable Lens Camera Advice?
jehan60188 writes "I want a camera that's better than my phone, but I don't have the technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR. I think the MILC style will be a happy compromise, but I'm concerned that it might be all 'marketing' and no 'technology.' I don't have a lot of demands, but I do like taking macro shots of things from time to time. Also, my sister is going to China in a few months, so a telephoto lens would probably be good for sight seeing (since I could employ optical zoom instead of the imaginary 'digital zoom')."
Get a Lumix from Panasonic, to be specific, get the DMC-LX5. Outstanding picture quality and if you need to shoot a video, it's not too bad too. The hardware flip to change from different resolutions is quite nice and the 16:9 format is just perfect for printout once back home.
I wont own a Sony because I have personal issues against the entire brand, but the NEX5 NEX7 cameras are awesome at photos and video. The manual controls are easy to use, and the auto settings produce great photos. The only down side to the camera is that it feels like a cell phone that somebody turned into a camera. The sensor is world class tho, and there are adapters to mount old range finder glass onto it. The panasonic micro four thrids cameras are all great. The GX1 with the pancake zoom lens could be really appealing to you. You would also be happy with the GF3 if you want more auto features and features in general, and maybe the G3 if a more traditional dslr inspired design fits your hands better.
You want www.dpreview.com
Yup. MILCs are a fad... They offer some of the image quality of a DSLR at a slightly smaller package, however:
With a telephoto lens, the size improvements of the body are less significant. In fact, you may actually be finding yourself wishing the camera body were larger due to balance issues! I know a lot of people with Pentax DSLRs and higher-end (longer/heavier) lenses keep the battery grip on at all times because of the superior balance and ergonomics.
MILCs have the same disadvantages as P&S cameras in terms of autofocus performance - like P&S cameras, they are fundamentally limited to contrast detection autofocus, which is MUCH slower than the phase detect systems in DSLRs. 90% of the time when you see someone complain about "shutter lag" in a P&S, the lag is actually the autotofocus system reconfirming focus. (A contrast detect system must "wiggle" the focus to confirm that it is correct, even if starting at perfect focus. A phase-detect system knows when it's at optimal focus immediately.)
Last but not least - MILC systems are FAR more expensive than entry-level DSLR kits.
Also, the MILC industry is too early to see where things go as far as accessories and lenses. Most systems only have 2-3 lenses available to them, and there's no guarantee you'll see more.
There's nothing saying you can't use a DSLR in a basic "program" mode - but you won't unlock its full potential. The same goes for a MILC though.
A DSLR will give you far more potential for growth as you learn the system, a MILC will quickly deadend on you.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Actually, mirrorless is going to almost totally replace SLR in the next 5-10 years. As the live viewfinder and global shutter technology surpasses the capabilities of a mirror, you'll see Nikon and Canon introduce professional mirrorless models in 35mm format that use all their old lenses as well as new mirrorless lenses that take advantage of the reduced flange-sensor distance. With a mechanical adapter you'll be able to use all the old Nikon lenses on Canon and vice versa. They'll still make one or two SLRs for the people that really want them, much in the same way that they still produce a few film cameras.
There is no relationship between having a mirror and quality, you can make SLRs with tiny sensors just as you can make mirrorless cameras with huge ones. The latest autofocus systems on micro-four-thirds are faster than actual systems in high end SLRs. I experience shutter lag on my cheap mirrorless body when I use completely mechanical lenses so it has nothing to do with autofocus performance.
So, I was very recently in this scenario. I gave up and bought a Canon T3i. I don't think the mirrorless cameras have really matured enough yet, outside of /maybe/ the Sony NEX series. But then you're dealing with Sony. To be fair, I have some brand loyalty to Canon because (a) they have a solid service department and (b) have been decent about the amazing side-loading firmware that the folks over at CHDK and MagicLantern have put together. If you just want DSLR-ish features (and then some) of long exposures, motion detection, timelapse, and HDR auto-bracketing, then look at a CHDK-supported, high-end Canon point-and-shoot.
The huge benefit that MILCs and DSLRs have is an almost 10x larger sensor space (and the lenses required to deal with that). This gives you insanely better shots at a much wider range of light settings, as you need less light to enter to develop a good picture.
MILCs are also much, much smaller than their DSLR cousins. This is good and bad. The lenses (especially telephotos) are still going to be weighty and unbalance a smaller camera, but you could conceivably pop it off and pocket the body, which is handy for travel.
I lost my patience, and just bought a not-insane DSLR. For 830 I got the T3i, a 18-55mm lens and a 75-300mm telephoto. I love it, but I'd love something even more portable more. I actually just came across this blog post the other day, which gets far geekier than I am on the future of MILC-likes: stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/04/dslrs-are-a-dying-breed-3rd-gen-cameras-are-the-future/
(And yes, I've already rooted it.)
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
While it's true that micro fourthirds and fourthirds (used on their consumer DSLRs, since higher end ones would be full frame) use the same sized sensor, and Sony's e-mount cameras also use an APS-C sensor similar in size to their consumer DSLRs, the optics are different, so you're not going to get the same properties out of them in terms of depth of field, for example.
This is a pretty good illustration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg
Cellphone sensors are smaller than anything on this chart, Point & Shoot cameras are the 1/2.5" to 1/1.6" sizes (typically closer to 1/2.5" these days), and the rest should be obvious. You only hit full frame on prosumer cameras, like the Canon 5D series or the Leica M9 (and others from Sony, Nikon, etc) nothing below that.
In the days of film photography I'd have agreed with you.
These days the sensor matters a lot. I agree entirely you still benefit from an excellent lens, and you're right on the longevity of lenses, but the "lowest end body" is too low end. Come in above the minimum bar and get a good sized sensor that can actually use all that light your excellent lens is giving to it.
Some of us like a large shutter speed range, good ISO mix and fast autofocus too, but that's a separate discussion.