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')."
Sounds like you want an all around camera, look into the panasonic gx1.
It has fantastic lenses for HD video, and will provide awesome photographs.
You might also be completely thrilled with a Sony NEX5 or new camera.
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.
You don't have the full technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR?
Learn it.
Trust me, the basics are a lot easier than you think. The rest is experimentation, play and frankly, photography.
You'll thank me in the long run when you're not stuck with a million lenses for a camera you've outgrown.
I am a professional so I am a little biased here....I say get a DSLR. The mirrorless stuff is a neat idea but slow and lacks in quality compared to a traditional DSLR. All low end DSLR's have dummy modes that work exactly the same as a mirrorless....so you don't really have to have technical knowledge. Trust me on this, I have many family members and friends who bought low end DSLR's and they use them just like they used there compact NON DSLR's.
With a SLR you will get better quality (well most of the time), more control and usually a wider range of lenses.
Mirrorless basically gets you a smaller camera
I'm sure there are excellent 'mirrorless' cameras too, but a dSLR doesn't require any great technical expertise. Just pick up one of the entry-level Nikon or Canon models (which are pretty small, and typically come as kits with versatile standard zooms). You can start off shooting in program mode with the kit zoom, which is no more difficult than using a phone camera. If you choose, you can add dedicated macro and telephoto (or longer zoom) lenses later.
It really has to do with the size of the sensor. The bigger the sensor the better the picture is going to be. The MILC cameras you are referring to have almost the same sensor size as DSLR's and a way way bigger sensor then in your mobile phone. See the article below for more information:
Why your cameras sensor size matters
so you don't have the knowledge to appreciate a dslr, yet you're willing to buy a similarly expensive mirrorless camera with multiple lenses?
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
You are posting on a technical site, say you are very interested in camera technology, but say you don't understand DSLR? I suggest a good DSLR tutorial rather than this feeble attempt at a slashvertisement.
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
"The best camera is the one you have with you" is a well known saying in photography. I have collected, and had the experience to work with, over the years, numerous cameras, lenses and videocams. Here are some of my learned truths:
1) Form factor matters - if you don't have the camera, you won't use it. My best pictures are from my DSLR with a big bounce-flash+diffuser and a nifty-fifty [1] prime lens. For close-ups and portrait style, this camera is really hard to beat... however, I almost never have this camera (or it's bukly flash) with me. I've resorted to taking some pretty decent pictures with my wife's point-n-shoot , and surprisingly my iPhone.
2) Video and Still pictures are two separate competencies. My best videos were with the aforementioned point and shoot, the next best with the iPhone. I almost never take video with the bulky DSLR, and when I do, the lack of auto-focus on video makes it difficult to do properly.
3) I've never tried the EVIL/MILC, but they seem like a great idea... just terribly expensive.
My recommendation would be to have several camera types (phone, P&S, DSLR) so that you can have availability and quality. the EVIL/MILC will never beat the bounce-flash equipped DSLR and prime lens (which would pale in comparison to a properly setup studio and multi-flash setup - but I can't afford that). In my world, the MILC would replace the point-and-shoot, and I'd still take the DSLR wherever I would normally take it (parties and events), but it'd be awesome to have almost-DSLR quality on my hikes. Recently I've been very impressed by my new iPhone4S so it might replace the P&S completely.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Look, if you can post a submission to Slashdot to ask this, you can use a modern DSLR.
They've got so much automation built into them that the camera can be operated in one or two modes without a lot of deep knowledge of the fiddly bits. As you use it, you can opt to try some of the new features, but they've still got some pretty good automated modes.
I occasionally do use some of the advanced features, but for the most part the auto modes cover my needs. But, if I want to delve into it, it's all there. You can run that as point and shoot cameras, or you can run them in full-on "stand back, I'm a professional" mode.
If you really want to get better quality pictures, the lens quality of a DSLR gets you to an awfully good level as long as you're buying a good quality lens instead of some of the cheaper lenses that come with the kits. Those are sometimes a compromise which makes for something which is OK most of the time ... I did a little more reading and bought my camera body and lens separate, because the lens I bought was better quality and more versatile than the ones which came bundled.
If you want to be able to change lenses, go with the DSLR and work up to it ... the lenses from the major companies will carry through their models for years. (I still use the old lenses from my film camera on my current Nikon DSLR.)
If you buy something in between, it might not cover all of your needs, and in a few years you might need to replace it all over again.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
but I don't have the technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR
Don't let your own knowledge & skill level be your reason to choose a MILC over a DSLR. The two kinds of camera are very similar in terms of their capabilities.
The major difference in the two is the way you view your scene prior to taking a picture. The "single lens reflex" in "SLR" means that you get an optical view of your scene through the lens you're using. As a result, what you see is extremely detailed (ie: almost as good as your eyes themselves). This is great for manual focusing. It doesn't suck any battery either.
The "M" in "MILC" (typically) means that you don't get this optical viewpath for composing your shots. Instead, you see your scene on an electronic LCD. This can be easier to view in some situations, but is far less detailed (ie: limited by the resolution of your LCD), so manual focusing is harder. Also, you need to drain your battery in order to see anything.
However, without the physical mirror & prism for the optical viewfinder a MILC can be much smaller and lighter than a corresponding DSLR. Typically, they also use smaller sensors, which in turn require smaller lenses. This further reduces size & weight, at the expense of image quality and optical performance.
That tradeoff is a fair one to consider. Let that be your decision factor, not your own knowledge. The techniques you use with each kind of camera will still be mostly the same.
If you can find one, get the NEX7, and pick a E mount lens that best suits your needs. Then, get an L to E adapter, and you can use 100's of Leicia L mount lenses. Most will only work in manual focus mode, but the peaking display makes focusing easy and accurate.
I just got an Alpha77, which is probably not what you are looking for. I love it, though, and the NEX7 shares a lot of the same technology and features.
Note that not a single one of his example shots has a moving subject, hiding one of the major disadvantages of P&S and MILC cameras (fundamentally slow autofocus.)
The best MILC's contrast detect AF might be able to match the weakest DSLR phase detect implementation - but if you have any intention on focusing on a moving subject (or even a fidgety impatient one), you want the autofocus performance of a DSLR, and phase detect systems will never be matched in terms of speed by CD systems.
Yes, CD systems can have some nifty "tricks" not available to PD systems - but any modern DSLR can focus using both methods anyway. No MILC will ever have a phase detect system.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I spent a lot of time looking into this, and went with the new Lumix GX1. For several years I've had a small point and shoot, and found that I simply didn't want the bulk of an SLR. Smaller camera bodies and smaller lenses was the big selling point, especially now that the Micro Four Thirds cameras generally have the same picture quality as entry-level SLRs. For me it came down to the Lumix G3 and the GX1; I decided I didn't need a viewfinder and tilt-and-swivel screen, and so went with the GX1. I used to be a big SLR fan when I took pictures with film, but I find now that I have to wear glasses having a viewfinder is a nuisance.
The biggest issue I have with the mirror less / micro four-third camera families is with ergonomics. These cameras are:
1. Too big to put in your pocket/purse/etc. so you don't carry them around as much as a point-n-shoot or a cell phone.
2. Too small to hold for a good posture to take pictures (one hand under the lens) yet the weight dictates some sort of two-hands operation.
3. Additionally, the "advanced" controls are buried deep under layers of menus, make them less usable than some of the more advanced point-n-shoot (like the Canon S100)
4. Lenses are not interchangeable with SLRs, so there is no upgrade path for those investments.
I would recommend you look at an entry-level DSLR (since the price points are close). Started out with the "green square" (automatic) modes, then learn to shoot in "P" (programmed) mode, adjusting ISO and compensations. Then move on to Av / Tv / M modes.
What you learn using a DLSR will be applicable to all cameras, and your investments in lenses won't be wasted.
Don't get me wrong, I think the mirror-less stuff is great, but the current crop of cameras leave too much out.
You know...I don't know where this complaint comes from.
It wasn't THAT long ago..when pretty much all we had were 33mm film cameras, and no one bitched about carrying a SLR camera and a lens (or maybe two).
Growing up, that's ALL we had.....hell as a kid, I always was asking my Dad to be the one to carry the family camera...finally one year when I was like 19 or so, on a cruise they got me my own..a Nikon FA blackbody..I was thrilled.
That thing lasted through college and a LOT of drunken parties. Those party shots are still with us today.....(hoping someone in there runs for senator so I can remind him of the photos, and get a cushy govt job).
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You'll thank me in the long run when you're not stuck with a million lenses for a camera you've outgrown.
Uh - all the major mounting systems (Canon, Nikon, four thirds, Leica) are not going away soon. They'll work just fine with newer cameras. There is a little risk with the APS-C lenses (Canon calls them "EF-S", Nikon "DX"), but both companies sell buckets more APS-C cameras than they do pro cameras which have larger sensors. They're not going away any time soon.
What you should NOT do is buy an emerging, unestablished lens mount system, like the Nikon 1. Also, if you have a large collection of old Nikkor AF lenses (or anticipate wanting to collect old, probably overrated and outdated lenses) that need a camera motor drive, some cheap Nikon dSLRs don't have that.
In terms of "outgrowing":
Please help metamoderate.
I just bought the E-PM1. I like it. It's smaller and easier to carry than the bulky DSLR's but still has good depth of controls, fast auto focus and shutter. Image quality is not as good as the current generation of DSLR's but it's as good as most of these proponents photographs proving DSLR's are the best that were taken with previous generation of DSLR's for what that's worth.
Just keep in mind Olympus is currently on life support and it's not known at this time if it will survive or the camera division will be sold off to someone and what they would do with the product line and the 4/3 standard. The lenses at least are compatible with Panasonic should that happen...
Instead of a Canon G9,10,11,2, get a Canon S90 (like I have) or its replacement which I think is the Canon S100. It's the same camera, in a smaller package. truly portable. My S90 has a f2,0 lens! I've never used the flash even during the evening, and I've never missed a shot. It's fast and has two user-configurable wheels for manual or semi-automatic shooting.
The DxOMark is a complete joke and comparing sensors with that fine of a difference in score is a losing proposition. The only legitimate way of comparing sensors is with 100% crops and actual field testing of the system. Yes, it's going to be somewhat arbitrary, but if a professional with experience can't rank one better than the other then there's really no reason to worry about it.
And at the end of the day, once you buy the first body you're mostly stuck with that system anyway. It gets to be quite expensive switching systems after that point typically.
As it happens, I wrote a long document, initially for my friends, but others in this same situation might find it helpful.
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach/step-up-camera2009.html (which I updated a month ago for the most current cameras)
In short, there's no one-size-fits-all answer. For many people, a high-end compact camera like a Canon S100 or Panasonic LX5 will give them everything they want and then some. For others, the mirrorless compact cameras will be more attractive than a big DSLR. And there's no rule that says you're not allowed to own multiple cameras.
Seriously. Unless you have a very special need, it's mostly geek bling. Same with a good SLR.
Go with a compact superzoom (preferred, you'll carry it everywhere), or a regular superzoom if you have the patience to carry a bulkier camera. I've had probably a dozen cameras over the last 8 years. I am an engineer who has to evaluate buildings, so I'm outdoors, shooting stuff on roofs and up in attics, down in subgrade basement/steam tunnels. Good lighting, crappy lighting, close to stuff, far from stuff. I've got a Lumix ZS5 and a ZS7. I put a carabiner on the wrist-strap ring and clip it to my side belt loop. I get surprisingly good pictures - not perfect, but I never miss a shot.
FWIW, I also own a D3 and about $10k worth of glass, from a 14/f2.8 up to 300/F2.8. It takes fucking awesome pictures, and I get stuff that's just darned near impossible to do with almost any other camera. You know what I take on vacation? Yup - the ZS5. I don't want multiple pieces and I don't want a camera bag.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The basics of photography are a simple equation made to appear complicated by using obscure notation.
Exposure = Shutter Speed x Aperture x Sensitivity
Exposure is the total amount of light captured, and the camera attempts to guess at what the correct exposure is. When it's guess is not what you had in mind you use Exposure Compensation to tell it what you want, or go to full manual mode and take control, though the camera will still show you how far you are away from what it thinks.
The reason why you can change different parameters is that in addition to affecting exposure they also have additional effects on the image.
Sensitivity is the simplest since it is just the gain applied. The tradeoff for increasing the gain is more noise and therefore less image quality, but otherwise doesn't change the image.
Shutter Speed affects how motion is captured, including your own motion while holding the camera.
Aperture is the most complicated. First it's expressed in an obscure form such as f/2.8 that you can't plug into our equation, but just know that one click of the dial when you change the aperture has the same effect as one click on the dial when you control the shutter as far as the exposure is concerned. What it affects in the image is called the Depth of Field, which is how far in front and behind the plane of focus will be sharp. But Depth of Field is also affected by the distance to the focal plane and the focal length of the lens. This is where there is no substitute for experience. The smaller the aperture (bigger f number) the more depth of field.
One of the main reasons for using a dslr is that the image sensor is larger, which means you use longer actual focal length lenses than a compact camera. This in turn gives you less depth of field for the equivalent field of view. A compact camera with a small sensor gives you very little control over the depth of field except at very close focus distances.
That's it. The various modes of the camera are just about which of the variables you are going to control and which you are going to let the camera control. But only in Manual mode will the camera not balance the exposure out for you, so don't be afraid to turn the dial away from Auto or Program. I use Aperture Priority 90% of the time, since that's the one that has the most effect on the image.
Ignore the people telling you to get a DSLR because it has better picture quality.
There are a lot of factors that determine the quality of your images, but the most substantial is sensor size. The sort of DSLRs that you would buy (that is, the ones under $2000) use APS-C sized sensors.
Guess what the Sony NEX-5N (a MILC) uses? An APS-C sensor. And it's arguably the best APS-C sized sensor on the market.
The NEX-5N takes pictures that rival any APS-C DSLR, and it does so for a considerably lower price than many DSLRs.
There are still a lot of good reasons to buy an APS-C DSLR over the NEX-5N:
custom quick menu. Still, DSLRs typically have more buttons which means easier access to settings quickly.
And there are a lot of good reasons to buy an NEX-5N over an APS-C DSLR:
I love my NEX-5N. It is not perfect for everyone, or for every purpose. But if you aren't interested in buying a ton of lenses, you don't like using a viewfinder, and you prefer a compact camera without crappy picture quality, the 5N is a really good choice.
Most of the highly rated comments in this discussion are as silly as highly popular comments in the "technical discussion about computers etc.," in photography sites like dpreview.
Seriously, dpreview would give you better advice
1. Handle cams in your budget. Remember, its you, not a reviewer who is going to use it
2. Read in depth reviews(dpreview). Do not go by reviwers observations completely, also look at samples at 100%(if you like to print), or 25%, or if you pictures will rarely leave the screen
That said, the Panasonic GH/X/G series are nice cams in the EVIL space(yes, we call them EVIL, Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens.
Olympus is decent too, but I feel panasonic has better handle on the Micro 4/3 and 4/3 space
If you want a larger sensor, then Sony NEX-7(or 5N) is your best bet. The 7 is truly a wonderful cam.
That said, only advantage a Mirrorless will have is size.
It will have the same gazillion settings(M mode,. Aperture, Shutter.... as a DSLR).
BTW, I had a 350D, and shifted to D7000. I also own a FZ35(Panasonic), and love the little cam. However, I sometimes do take 15-20 minute + exposures, so I have to stick with Canon, Nikon or Sony. Since Sony is very frightfully expensive in India, I went for a Nikon(Sony sensor).
Lastly, the Nex-7 sensor is truly a class apart. I wonder how could they control noise in such a densely packed sensor.
The 4/3,m4/3 cams will be noiser, and if you frequently use ISO 1600+, you will have trouble.
Other than that, they truly rock.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Just be careful of the MILC drawbacks; slow to focus (a couple of people have already pointed this out), and poor(er) handling in low light (there was another dpreview article, mirrorless primer or somesuch, that also mentions this). Between my (aging) LX3 and a full DSLR, until they improve the 4/3 and m4/3s in terms of performance (and remember this is a very young market), I am still considering upgrading to an LX5 as I feel there's nothing in-between worth spending the money on, to fill that gap. ...
The other drawback we've encountered is that the Mirrorless cameras we've tested so far can struggle to focus in low light to a greater degree than most DSLRs do. And, as the result of the way they focus, they don't always see the same benefit from using an AF illuminator as DSLRs do.
Ah, here's the article: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0344780582/mirrorless-cameras-a-primer
and quote:
The first is the inability to match the autofocus speed of DSLRs when conducting continuous or predictive AF. Single-shot AF tends not to be so much of an issue, with most recent Mirrorless models able to match or, in the case of Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic, exceed the single-attempt focusing speed of most DSLRs.