Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras

Forums › Digital Imaging › Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras - thoughts?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

510 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677312 26-Aug-2012 22:08

Can I ask where you saw the new Canon EOS-M camera please. Was this through Canon themselves ?

"In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." -
-- Abraham lincoln

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

bisr

227 posts

Master Geek

#677357 27-Aug-2012 02:28

timmmay: Compared with the 5DII you'll find mirrorless cameras to have less DOF and inferior picture quality due to the smaller sensor

No, MORE apparent depth of field. A greater area will be in focus with similar framing at the same aperture = a larger depth of field.

DOF is not an 'effect' that a camera possesses, it's a condition of optics. I could get into an explanation of why technically speaking all cameras have exactly the same DOF as long as they have the same flange focal depth (space between rear of lens and image plane eg. 'sensor' or 'film') because actually we are speaking about hyperfocal distances when we compare apparent DOFs of camers with different frame sizes, but that would get really confusing.

Source : The school of learning the hard way with gnarly old cinematographers looking at me with scorn until I got wise + an comparatively useless masters degree in this stuff.

bisr

227 posts

Master Geek

#677358 27-Aug-2012 02:50

You're also forgetting the Leica M9 which is going to be the best mirrorless (we used to call them rangefinder back in the olden days) digital camera I would say, apart from the RED Epic of course which gets used a lot on fashion campaigns for stills as well as video. But the size of that might defeat the purpose and the cost would make a Leica fan faint.

I mean, given the fact that none of the OP's kit from his Nikon is going to fit any of the mirrorless cameras we were mentioning, why not at least consider the M9? One excellent lens is a thousand times better than twenty very poor ones. Especially when it's on the most ergonomically perfect camera form of all time and it has a two-year warranty. And the resale value of the lenses will always be very high.

timmmay

20353 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#677383 27-Aug-2012 07:53

bisr:
timmmay: Compared with the 5DII you'll find mirrorless cameras to have less DOF and inferior picture quality due to the smaller sensor

No, MORE apparent depth of field. A greater area will be in focus with similar framing at the same aperture = a larger depth of field.

Ah yeah I know, but I wrote it wrong. I meant less as in less good, more depth of field.

timmmay

20353 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#677400 27-Aug-2012 08:46

The Panasonic GH2 micro four thirds camera's looking pretty nice right now. Optical viewfinder, big sensor, range of lenses available, etc. The GH3 will be announced in September, and it's meant to compete with crop sensor DSLRs, at a higher price than the GH2. I might wait for that then either get it, or get a cheaper GH2.

bisr

227 posts

Master Geek

#677401 27-Aug-2012 08:46

timmmay:
bisr:
timmmay: Compared with the 5DII you'll find mirrorless cameras to have less DOF and inferior picture quality due to the smaller sensor

No, MORE apparent depth of field. A greater area will be in focus with similar framing at the same aperture = a larger depth of field.

Ah yeah I know, but I wrote it wrong. I meant less as in less good, more depth of field.

Then possibly the term for you to use is 'Better' or 'Worse'.

Even then, that's pejorative because a shallow depth of field isn't always good in every situation, sometimes it sucks to have to stop down too far to get two people in focus or to get the right focal range for macro photography. A camera with a wider comparable hyperfocal range is effectively faster in that you can shoot with wider apertures which let in more light so you are able to shoot at a faster shutter speed which could be the difference between a steady shot or not. Also, there are quite a few micro 4/3rds lenses which have ultra-wide opertures (Less than F1.0) coming out which would give you the same apparent depth as your 5D MkII at F2 which is pretty jolly narrow. The use among bad professional and amateur photographers of crazy shallow DOF on everything is so overly prevalent and badly done it's embarrassing.

The only accurate way of expressing DOF is 'wide' and 'narrow' and comparable terms like 'deep' or 'shallow'.

And in any case, the Leica M9 is mirrorless and has exactly the same apparent DOF as a 5D MkII. So, y'know, I am not trying to be mean but... y'know... stop... talking...?

timmmay

20353 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#677402 27-Aug-2012 08:49

I know, I know, I'm a professional photographer and an engineer, I could teach this stuff.

I agree narrower DOF isn't always good, and sometimes I do want more not less. For example at wedding receptions the more DOF my camera has the less flash power I need, and the faster I can shoot. Also more is good for group shots, or at least the option to have more DOF. I also don't like having say eyes in focus and ears unrecognisable, but that's personal taste.

bisr

227 posts

Master Geek

#677403 27-Aug-2012 08:54

Well... as far as stills go, the GH2 is not really up to spec. But for shooting video, especially if you use one of the hacks to unleash the bitrate of video codec... then I honestly think bang for buck it is the best little camera out there. Like I said, with ultra-wide aperture primes you can still get shallow depth of field on that little sucker.

Plus if you use one of the Panasonic lenses you have touch-screen focus adjustment as well as autofocus for video. Trust me after you have shot a job with a 5D mk II when you can't control anything like videoing an event or shooting footage for a documentary, you would be begging to use the GH2 instead. The only thing a Canon 5D mkII or 1dmkIV has over a GH2 for video is the ability to render skin tone in close-ups. In that the GH2 cannot compete. However, if you had both camera with you to chop and change then you would seriously have a funky little video kit that could just stay strapped to your shoulders.

timmmay

20353 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#677404 27-Aug-2012 08:58

Interest, the GH2 was recommended to me on a pro only photography forum. I'll look into though, it does seem to have a video focus. I have no interest in video, I had a 7D until I switched to Nikon and never really used the video.

What would your pick of M4/3 camera be bisr?

lchiu7

6457 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#677407 27-Aug-2012 09:00

wmoore: Can I ask where you saw the new Canon EOS-M camera please. Was this through Canon themselves ?

It was at an Ingram Micro technology showcase where Canon showed a pre production model.

Staying in Wellington. Check out my AirBnB in the Wellington CBD. https://www.airbnb.co.nz/h/wellycbd PM me and mention GZ to get a 15% discount and no AirBnB charges.

bisr

227 posts

Master Geek

#677418 27-Aug-2012 09:20

Ummmm... none of them really. I honestly can't deal with the lack of detail, tonality, and resolution - by that I don't mean megapixels obviously, a hassleblad V-series with an old 10MP back is going to be outrageously better than a Canon 1DSmk3... even if the files might be more unwieldy.

At the end of the day I am always disappointed by the standard of the images. Hell, I am frequently disappointed by any Full-Frame Canon compared with the Full-Frame Nikon's. And then intensely disappointed in comparison to an old V-series Blad with a good back! That is the best hand-held digital camera setup in the world, bar none.

I honestly don't see the advantage unless you are just taking snaps. And then in that case, the GH2 is an awesome little camera that is going to give you a lot of fun. But then you could just use your smartphone since that costs the same and lots of people already have one.

I dunno... the fun I get from taking photos is the quality of the result really or doing something crazy with the tech, and then in the case of the latter, any camera is fun as long as you are willing to f-k it up :)

I don't ever take snaps which is why my 5D mkII has only done 35,000 shutters in 3 years! But then again I have used it a lot for video, it was paid for as part of a music video budget.

If you want a mobile camera then the best in the world is going to be an old Leica M-series using 35mm neg. The next best choice is going to be an M9 I think.

timmmay

20353 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#677421 27-Aug-2012 09:26

Leica's too expensive. I'm looking for something between my girlfriends little pink camera (not even sure what brand it is) and my D700 + 16-35 + SB900, which is just too unwieldy, heavy, and needs a dedicated bag.

I take landscapes (16mm on full frame) and photos of my partner and I. Her little camera's too frustrating to use, and the image quality isn't good enough. A M4/3 should be roughly comparable to a crop body DSLR, which I used professionally for years quite happily. Even if it's not as good as a 40D that's fine, so long as it's compact and has better image quality than a $200 Sony.

I do like bounce flash, so something that can take either my Canon or Nikon speedlites would be a big bonus, though I can buy another flash if I have to.

bisr

227 posts

Master Geek

#677430 27-Aug-2012 09:37

timmmay: Leica's too expensive. I'm looking for something between my girlfriends little pink camera (not even sure what brand it is) and my D700 + 16-35 + SB900, which is just too unwieldy, heavy, and needs a dedicated bag.

I take landscapes (16mm on full frame) and photos of my partner and I. Her little camera's too frustrating to use, and the image quality isn't good enough. A M4/3 should be roughly comparable to a crop body DSLR, which I used professionally for years quite happily. Even if it's not as good as a 40D that's fine, so long as it's compact and has better image quality than a $200 Sony.

I do like bounce flash, so something that can take either my Canon or Nikon speedlites would be a big bonus, though I can buy another flash if I have to.

GH2 with a hotshoe adapter is going to be the one then. That is what I would get under the context you have described, thank you for providing it. Or, wait for the GH3 if you can stand it and afford it, as apparently it will be noticeably more expensive than the GH2 was at launch.

If you also like playing around with the tech, even though you don't care about video really, the GH2 will give you lots of fun with tinkering (i.e. hacking) it and might even get you interested in using video more as it really is the most useable camera for shooting video and the results you can get out of it combined with the autofocus are staggering for the price. It's worth buying for that alone - you and your partner get a good little camera that is going to be even better for family/friend events with both good stills and video in hand (which is just as useful for having a record of important moments, sometimes more so!)...

... and you secretly get a new toy you can tweak and hack.

Win-Win.

bisr

227 posts

Master Geek

#677432 27-Aug-2012 09:45

Check out the Voigtlaender lenses for Micro 4/3 btw - those are the ultra-wide aperture / ultra-fast lenses I was talking about.

timmmay

20353 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#677433 27-Aug-2012 09:46

I'm long past looking at cameras as toys, they're purely tools to me these days. I've owned about ten Canon cameras and two Nikon, loads of lenses, flashes, etc. I really just want to take some nice photos of my holidays, landscapes and of us. No need for video for ages though, if ever.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4