# Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera



## mbworldz (Aug 3, 2014)

I know the Sony A7R is a hit. But I haven't seen any professional wedding photographers using this camera on location. Are they still prefer using the DSLR like the Canon 5DM3.......if this camera is light weight and good quality, why don't they use it ? I myself is a Canon shooter with the 1DX. Tried the Sony once just find it complicated LOL plus the LCD in the back can't turn off. It bothers !

Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?


----------



## ecka (Aug 3, 2014)

EVF lag.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 3, 2014)

To say that Sony A7R "is a success" is too subjective. Success compared to what other camera? Actually A7R Sony is the only camera in its class, and has no direct competitors. The wedding photographers need reliable equipment, above all. In this aspect Canon DSLR and Nikon dominate the market.

The line of lenses and accessories A7R is very limited, and the history of Sony to abandon some product lines, uncooperative in doing exciting things. Believe it can be used "second camera" at weddings, but not as the main system. The future may be dominated by mirrorless, but this day has not yet arrived.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 3, 2014)

mbworldz said:


> NT


Why would one jump on newer camera with different set of features and qualities, when he has already good system including lenses and stuff, and no need to jump the ship, because new cam won´t bring more money?
Doesn´t make sense. Do you always have new Ferrari model (of course if any, the same as with Sony here) if they release it?
....No....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2014)

mbworldz said:


> I know the Sony A7R is a hit.



Based on? It seems to be 'a hit' with a few forum posters and some bloggers. In terms of sales, perhaps less of a hit...


----------



## tolusina (Aug 3, 2014)

crashpc said:


> ....... Do you always have new Ferrari model.......


I think this is a poor allegory. 
If I was to ever be in the Ferrari ownership demographic, certainly I'd always want the latest.
Contrarily, Sony and Apple too are completely safe from any and all concerns regarding dispersal of any funds earned from me, and, sorry Ferrari, you'll only ever earn my money in my dreams.
Canon, you already have too much from me, I promise there'll be more.


----------



## mbworldz (Aug 3, 2014)

Just based on lots of people talking about it. I got some of my friends bought it also. I am not a fan of sony cameras - mirrorless. I love my Mark 3 and 1DX. I just can't hold a small camera to do wedding photograhy lol. It feels and can you imagine every one including the guests all using that camera.



neuroanatomist said:


> mbworldz said:
> 
> 
> > I know the Sony A7R is a hit.
> ...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 3, 2014)

I don't have hands on experience with the camera, but from reviews I've read it does not sound like the ideal camera for wedding photography. 

The camera is noisy (no silent shutter like the 5D-III and 6D.)
The focusing is perhaps not as fast as DSLRs in poor light.
I don't think it has dual memory card slots (e.g. for backup copies, you would need to rely in Wifi SD-cards)
The battery life is perhaps a bit worse than DSLRs
The Sony flash system is perhaps not as versatile or reliable as the Nikon or Canon systems.

Anyway, this is just the impression I get... I might be wrong on any of the points above.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 4, 2014)

mbworldz said:


> I know the Sony A7R is a hit. But I haven't seen any professional wedding photographers using this camera on location. Are they still prefer using the DSLR like the Canon 5DM3.......if this camera is light weight and good quality, why don't they use it ? I myself is a Canon shooter with the 1DX. Tried the Sony once just find it complicated LOL plus the LCD in the back can't turn off. It bothers !
> 
> Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?




I still don't see wedding photographers using more than entry level camera bodies, I've certainly never seen a 1D.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 4, 2014)

9VIII said:


> I still don't see wedding photographers using more than entry level camera bodies, I've certainly never seen a 1D.



There are plenty of wedding photographers using the Nikon D3, D4, D4s, D700, D800 and the Canon 1D series. For a long time, my main wedding cameras were the original 1D, 1DII, 1DIIN and 1DIII. Currently I mainly use the 5D3 and 6D as they are easier to carry than the 1D series. I also use the Olympus E-M1 and Canon SL1 for their smaller size. The smaller cameras are really fun. Of the Sony A7 series, the A7S is probably the most interesting for weddings right now.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 4, 2014)

mbworldz said:


> Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?



Nowhere near as fast as a DSLR outside of ideal conditions, but they're pretty good in bright light on static subjects when using native lenses.


----------



## benperrin (Aug 4, 2014)

9VIII said:


> I still don't see wedding photographers using more than entry level camera bodies, I've certainly never seen a 1D.



You need to get out more. I don't know of any seasoned pros that are using entry level gear. Amateurs and newbies are (for good reason).


----------



## distant.star (Aug 4, 2014)

.
Allegory?

Surely, it's the tiniest and most arcane and obscure allegory ever created.





tolusina said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > ....... Do you always have new Ferrari model.......
> ...


----------



## deleteme (Aug 4, 2014)

benperrin said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't see wedding photographers using more than entry level camera bodies, I've certainly never seen a 1D.
> ...


I think his observation is based on the fact that so many of the wedding shooters remaining ARE amateur/newbies. There are a fair number of seasoned pros using top gear for weddings but the trend for revenue of wedding shooters has been down. The number of wedding shooters selling workshops to newbs on how to make big bucks shooting weddings is certainly up.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 4, 2014)

mbworldz said:


> I know the Sony A7R is a hit. But I haven't seen any professional wedding photographers using this camera on location. Are they still prefer using the DSLR like the Canon 5DM3.......if this camera is light weight and good quality, why don't they use it ? I myself is a Canon shooter with the 1DX. Tried the Sony once just find it complicated LOL plus the LCD in the back can't turn off. It bothers !
> 
> Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?



You are not likely to see many professional photographers using Sony. One big reason is their poor service, it can take months to get a repair. Professionals have to consider a whole system, they can't afford to have equipment in for repairs for months. They need all the pieces in place. I don't know how reliable they are, but, if they can't have a reasonable turnaround on repairs, it gets to be very expensive. Every brand breaks down, no one is immune. Canon has the best and fastest service for professionals - hands down. Even Nikon takes far to long to repair a item, but Sony is in a class by themselves.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 4, 2014)

mbworldz said:


> I know the Sony A7R is a hit. But I haven't seen any professional wedding photographers using this camera on location. Are they still prefer using the DSLR like the Canon 5DM3.......if this camera is light weight and good quality, why don't they use it ? I myself is a Canon shooter with the 1DX. Tried the Sony once just find it complicated LOL plus the LCD in the back can't turn off. It bothers !
> 
> Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?



-Horrible battery life (this is likely largest issue)
-EVF inferior
-Paltry native lens selection, and canon adapter has major issues
-Paltry accessory ecosystem
-Autofocus inferior
-Ergonomic nightmare with popular wedding lenses such as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II

While a camera enthusiast could probably get past some of these issues, for a wedding photographer or other professional they are major stumbling blocks... Which is why the A7 has been unpopular with professionals - although in the US equally priced Canon/Nikon DSLRs greatly outsell the a7/a7r in general.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon has the best and fastest service for professionals - hands down.



I agree 100%. Canon service = awesome.


----------



## pablo (Aug 4, 2014)

The A7 is a headline camera. not a mature system. 

Jaw dropping specs for the price, well targeted models for specific target models, of course Canon should have made something like it, full frame - doh! a 4k variant - doh! a high resolution version - doh! a low light king with 400k+ plus iso? doh! canon. doh! doh! doh!

I'm selling all my eos gear and buying one tomorrow, just lie I did when the d90 came out with video, even though I had to buy it all anew when the 5d2 came out, only to sell it again when d800 came out,only to buyit all again when the d800 kept breaking, of course with a detour by the fuji x system on the way, would have kept that but for the orbs...

dang.

If only canon had the freedom to design a camera from scratch, unrestrained by the 75+ range of EF lenses.

So we have the a7. The camera the eos m should have been. oh but without an optical viewfinder (not really getting into the spirit of this mirrorless idea are we?)

Yes folks, I am talking bullocks.

As a video guy I half think, yeah an a7s.... 4k! super!

I need 4k about as much as I need more than 6mp, but thats not the point, when did need come into buying new camera gear.

So I am actually stuck with the boring aka 'mature' EOS system. when what I actually want is to buy a complete new range of newly developed lenses in a newly developed system, that wont work with my flashguns, that wont work with my memory cards, that won't even work with my couple of year old video editing app or generation old photoshop...

And dang that a7, if I want all of its headline features I'm actually going to have to buy and carry 3 cameras.

But the worst mistake of all would be to make my decision based on what wedding ohotographers are doing.

For me 95% of wedding photographers are chancers. A bold statement, and one that will see me accused of trolling / flaming / whatever else. if you are offended by this, i didn't mean YOU, you dear reader are clearly in the 5%, so please, save us both the correspondence...

The upshot is, I'm not going to buy an a7. Sony will ditch the mount come the a8. Sony have the sensor advantage for now, and Nikon are riding on the back of that. nobody else has the canon glass, and in that regard, along with af tech, everybody else has been playing catch up with the ef ststem for most of its life.

so if you need to fill a billboard or the side of a double decker then get an a7r.

if you need a camera that sits at the eye and can change af modes, wb modes, track at 8-10fps, in the rain then get a canon.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 4, 2014)

mbworldz said:


> I know the Sony A7R is a hit. But I haven't seen any professional wedding photographers using this camera on location. Are they still prefer using the DSLR like the Canon 5DM3.......if this camera is light weight and good quality, why don't they use it ? I myself is a Canon shooter with the 1DX. Tried the Sony once just find it complicated LOL plus the LCD in the back can't turn off. It bothers !
> 
> Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?



My wedding photography experience is restricted to roughly 10 weddings of friends who asked me to take photographs (with Powershot G2 ("worst case"), 40D and 600D).

If you want to catch precious moments you need a system that is very responsive - in terms of viewfinder, AF, exposure - and which is reliable to do the task right. I do not own the Sony or a similar camera. But extrapolating from my EOS M experience I see theses systems as slow and not well equipped with external controls to react instantanously. Using the EOS M was in the first time like using a mini tablet computer which produces images of stunning quality - IMO the wrong feel for a camera.

I see the Sony 7x or the EOS M as high quality walk around cameras for moderately fast or static subjects where you have the chance to repeat a shot. The main advantage is the very high IQ compared to the size of these cameras if you use compact lenses (no high aperture tele).


----------



## crashpc (Aug 4, 2014)

tolusina said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > ....... Do you always have new Ferrari model.......
> ...


Maybe I put it wrong but from what I´ve seen it´s about right. You have the same reason - you have some good and wide gear/system, you´re kinda locked to it, and Sony gear will not make you more money anyway. That way it´s very natural that not many people will jump elsewhere. Only few with very specific reasons and big money will. If I own Porsche, I´ll not jump on new Ferrari model just because it´s max speed is 25kph more...


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Aug 4, 2014)

I am a bit confused - mirrorless vs. mirrored. is the topic not Canon vs. Sony.

No doubt the mirror has been around for a long, long time. One wonders if that type of technology is really needed. I played w/ an Olympus MF 4/3 and found that focusing w/ the matched 12-35 (think 24-70) was pretty darn fast. 

i certainly haven't done timing tests on focusing speeds, etc. but one ponders if the mirror space was done away with does that offer up any optic benefits? One can always design for a larger effective flange space, not a smaller - somewhere along the line the lens designer had to make a compromise that in a mirrorless could be eliminated.

I know there are people on this board that have studied the physics, electronics, etc of the focusing systems and could provide the answer to focusing speed - is it the motor/algorithm (sometimes the mass of the glass has to effect the speed) or it the intrinsic predictability/precision of the various methods. Lastly chip speed has to have something do with it as well.

certainly no one complained that the Leica M "range finder" cameras IQ suffered because of short flange distance.

Noise, space, design options, these are my questions - focus is I THINK (don't know) is a software/sensor thing - I bet if the optics are there, the engineers figure out the AF concerns.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 4, 2014)

Busted Knuckles said:


> No doubt the mirror has been around for a long, long time. One wonders if that type of technology is really needed. I played w/ an Olympus MF 4/3 and found that focusing w/ the matched 12-35 (think 24-70) was pretty darn fast.
> 
> 
> i certainly haven't done timing tests on focusing speeds, etc. but one ponders if the mirror space was done away with does that offer up any optic benefits? One can always design for a larger effective flange space, not a smaller - somewhere along the line the lens designer had to make a compromise that in a mirrorless could be eliminated.



From what I read, the major barriers to a full transition to mirrorless are:

1. battery life -- if you're a landscape or studio shooter this is not a problem. For events and travel it seems mirrorless needs at least double the battery life

2. EVF lag -- this is pretty close; current best is about 30% more than human visual system lag

3. EVF quality -- a very high-quality EVF is needed for pro work

4. EVF user interface -- zebras; focus peaking; ability to set the tone curve (or selectable tone curves) for the EVF; dials or buttons to allow sliding the tone-curve to check the full range of exposure. 

5. EVF low-light quality

#4 may be the easiest technically, but the hardest in practice because it will require a lot of ergonomic testing with real photographers who shoot a variety of styles.

That's my completely uninformed impression/speculation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2014)

Busted Knuckles said:


> I know there are people on this board that have studied the physics, electronics, etc of the focusing systems and could provide the answer to focusing speed - is it the motor/algorithm (sometimes the mass of the glass has to effect the speed) or it the intrinsic predictability/precision of the various methods. Lastly chip speed has to have something do with it as well.
> 
> certainly no one complained that the Leica M "range finder" cameras IQ suffered because of short flange distance.



Putting phase detect on the image sensor is on the way to solving the AF problem for mirrorless, and Canon's DPAF is another big step in that direction. Contrast detect is slower because it's more iterative, phase detect determines direction and magnitude at the outset.

You're correct about the Leica rangefinders. No one complained about the film versions, because film is not affected by the incident angle of incoming light. No one complains about the digital versions, because Leica took sensor and lens design steps to compensate for the problem caused by high incident light angles with a short flange distance.


----------



## ecka (Aug 4, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> 2. EVF lag -- this is pretty close; current best is about 30% more than human visual system lag



Which lag are you talking about?
The LiveView lag
The after shot blackout lag
The shutter lag
I call "EVF lag" the total lag difference compared to DSLR.
Mirrorless burst mode lag is pretty bad .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsddzE5f13k


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Aug 29, 2014)

;D 
OK so i have been wanting the M3 to come out so I could have a small but highly functional travel camera to stick in my briefcase/backpack for all my business trips and just to have with me 24/7 and maintain my rather substantial investment in glass.

You might recall that I stopped by the local camera shop and got tempted by the latest Olympus offering. And John expressed himself with a nifty through homage to B&W "R" (by Steiglitz I think) but a red "A" . I might deserve a greater list of letters with this one 

I was able to fight off my G.A.S. disease.... until.... Metabones has just announced an adapter for all my Canon lenses to fit the M4/3 mount - either "speed booster" which steps of the speed a stop and de-crops from 2x to 1.5x or just a pass through smart adapter.

Suddenly the whole world of M4/3 and some fairly serious feature sets are wide open. I know the trade offs and $$$. But, it is an option worthy of consideration, a compact highly functional 'briefcase camera' 

I have a big vacation trip coming up and the wife just might be toting a m4/3 in her purse...


----------



## Aglet (Aug 29, 2014)

I've got a pile of ML bodies these days:
Fuji XT1
Fuji XE1
Fuji XA1. XM1

Pentax K01
Pentax Q
Pentax Q7

Olympus OMD EM10

The EM10 is my all around favourite ML; works great in most lighting conditions, very flexible tho the minimal number of physical controls makes you think carefully about how you want to set it up for various uses. It can AF very quickly even with long lenses in less than ideal light; I've been impressed. The EM1 should be even better for AF. This is a camera that you really need to spend time with to learn, it's not as intuitive to tweak as most others I've used. EVF quality is pretty good until the lighting gets too low.

The XT1 has impressive overall IQ and low light ability. The EVF is truly excellent and can display so much more info than an OVF. Still no SLR equivalent in operational terms but it's only really hampered by Fuji's bizarre user interface which means I haven't yet found a way to make it anywhere near as quick to change shooting modes as with an advanced SLR. The physical controls on this camera look great, the dials feel nice when you're only playing with them, but as far as using the camera, it gets my nod for the worst buttons and control ergonomics ever, puts Nikon's Df to shame. If they make a bunch of improvements, it will be a ML to reckon with. As it is, it makes a fantastic still life/landscape camera or portrait monster with the fast primes.

The other fuji bodies are all quite pleasant to use, if not as fast as SLR or the XT1.

The Pentax k01 is an interesting brick of a camera that's OK to use but no EVF makes it a pain to use outdoors, much as any other non-EVF ML body. All the Pentax ML bodies AF fast enough for most things except certain kinds of sports.

I don't have any Panasonic or Sony but Pany's new GH4 has a hybrid phase + contrast AF system that is fast and accurate enough to make DSLRs nervous about the future.

Live histograms in the EVF mean it's easy to adjust EV and see the results displayed as well as in the histogram. Nothing to disparage here in any of them compared to OVF, just different abilities and limitations to get used to.

You have to try one.


----------



## pwp (Aug 29, 2014)

I like both. Mirrorless has a big future. Once the AF gets up to speed and the EVF evolves sufficiently, what else has to happen? Based on the game-changing specs & performance & gob-smacked reviews of the mirrorless Panasonic GH-4 I bought one for my video work where it tidily beats the pants off my 5D3 in all situations with the exception of high iso shooting (over 1600 iso). 

After using the GH-4 for a couple of months I'm discovering the sheer brilliance of it's very decent EVF and surprisingly good AF; much much quicker and accurate than I initially expected. Now that Adobe DNG converter v8.6 and Lightroom v5.6 can see the GH-4 RAW files, I've even been using it for stills on some commercial jobs. 

Mirrorless is evolving fast. It's great to use. I'd hate to see favourite mainstream manufacturers (cough, cough..) being caught flat footed as this revolution gains pace.

-pw


----------



## ecka (Aug 29, 2014)

pwp said:


> I like both. Mirrorless has a big future. Once the AF gets up to speed and the EVF evolves sufficiently, what else has to happen? Based on the game-changing specs & performance & gob-smacked reviews of the mirrorless Panasonic GH-4 I bought one for my video work where it tidily beats the pants off my 5D3 in all situations with the exception of high iso shooting (over 1600 iso).
> 
> After using the GH-4 for a couple of months I'm discovering the sheer brilliance of it's very decent EVF and surprisingly good AF; much much quicker and accurate than I initially expected. Now that Adobe DNG converter v8.6 and Lightroom v5.6 can see the GH-4 RAW files, I've even been using it for stills on some commercial jobs.
> 
> ...



GH4 is a brilliant tool for video. Have you tried the Sigma 18-35/1.8 via SpeedBooster on it? Some say it helps to overcome the high ISO disadvantage very effectively.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Aug 29, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Busted Knuckles said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt the mirror has been around for a long, long time. One wonders if that type of technology is really needed. I played w/ an Olympus MF 4/3 and found that focusing w/ the matched 12-35 (think 24-70) was pretty darn fast.
> ...



The EVF is the single, most significant barrier in my view. AF is speeding up with each new camera release. But EVFs still aren't there. Personally, I can't stand them to look through despite all the info they provide.


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2014)

I know of a professional photographer who is using Sony 7 (do not know which version) after selling his Nikon 800


----------



## moreorless (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Putting phase detect on the image sensor is on the way to solving the AF problem for mirrorless, and Canon's DPAF is another big step in that direction. Contrast detect is slower because it's more iterative, phase detect determines direction and magnitude at the outset.
> 
> You're correct about the Leica rangefinders. No one complained about the film versions, because film is not affected by the incident angle of incoming light. No one complains about the digital versions, because Leica took sensor and lens design steps to compensate for the problem caused by high incident light angles with a short flange distance.



Speaking of rangefinders isn't a big issue with on sensor PDAF going to be that the light is spilt over a very short distance compared to a DSLR? rather like the difference between a rangefinder with a short and a long baselenght.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 7, 2014)

Ive had Canon cameras for over 40 years but when the Olympus E-500 came out I was given one as a present and today as well as my 6d and 7d I have an Olympus OM-D E-M10 with three zooms. 
I use the Oly as a lightweight alternative sometimes but as good as the images are they are not up to the Canon 6d which is much better for Landscape.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 8, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> mbworldz said:
> 
> 
> > I know the Sony A7R is a hit. But I haven't seen any professional wedding photographers using this camera on location. Are they still prefer using the DSLR like the Canon 5DM3.......if this camera is light weight and good quality, why don't they use it ? I myself is a Canon shooter with the 1DX. Tried the Sony once just find it complicated LOL plus the LCD in the back can't turn off. It bothers !
> ...



I imagine that anyone who makes a living out of photography is going to have a few more than one camera body. So service time should not be a factor.

The reason people might not see many on the Sony cameras might simply because they are relatively new, which means that it is going to take time to penetrate the market since professionals do not dump all their equipment every time a new camera comes out. Even if what they have is not "state of the art", it doesn't matter 99.9% of the time. What matters to them is reliability and familiarity with the equipment they currently have. Professional photographers know how to take good pictures, they don't depend on the equipment to do it for them, so they are less concerned about the latest greatest thing in the way amateurs are.

Commercial users of technical equipment tend to be very conservative when it comes to replacing their current tools. This is a characteristic of all fields, not just photography.


----------



## distant.star (Sep 8, 2014)

I disagree with most of what you say, but thought you might like to know there is a ship with that name...


----------



## dak723 (Sep 8, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Busted Knuckles said:
> ...



A year ago, I would have agreed with you. I bought both a Canon 6D and an Olympus EM-1. I was very hesitant on getting the Olympus because of the EVF. Now, a year later, I sure wish the Canon had an EVF! So much easier to adjust exposure and change settings without the eye leaving the viewfinder. Under most conditions, I completely forget that I am looking through an EVF.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 8, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> I use the Oly as a lightweight alternative sometimes but as good as the images are they are not up to the Canon 6d which is much better for Landscape.



My favorite *Mirrorless* for *Landscapes* is my *4x5 Toyo view camera*.  *Arizona Highways* magazine still prefers 4x5 chromes to digital files.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 8, 2014)

Lack of lens Selection.
Lack of a Mature Flash system.
Lack of Ergonomics for Long Handheld use.
Laggy EVF in Low Light.
Slow AF.
Crap Battery Life.
Crap Sync Speed (A7R)
No PC sync port.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 9, 2014)

Tugela said:


> I imagine that anyone who makes a living out of photography is going to have a few more than one camera body. So service time should not be a factor.



Good point. So when my 70-200 II took a jarring knock last month resulting in the elements going out of alignment, what should I have done? simply reach out for my back up 70-200 II 

BTW, CPS returned my lens in perfect working condition within 24 hours.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 9, 2014)

mbworldz said:


> I know the Sony A7R is a hit. But I haven't seen any professional wedding photographers using this camera on location. Are they still prefer using the DSLR like the Canon 5DM3.......if this camera is light weight and good quality, why don't they use it ? I myself is a Canon shooter with the 1DX. Tried the Sony once just find it complicated LOL plus the LCD in the back can't turn off. It bothers !
> 
> Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?



Buying new gear is NOT what pros spend their time doing. It is what amateurs do.

It is just not prudent for a person who depends on their tools to pitch them for an entire new set just because of web buzz. 
Sure, the gear may be good but a pro has specific needs and the last increment of putative IQ is not one of them despite what you may think.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 9, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine that anyone who makes a living out of photography is going to have a few more than one camera body. So service time should not be a factor.
> ...



Did the exact same thing. 70-200 IS II hit the floor of the Houston Airport in a heavily padded lowepro sling bag. Still managed to shatter the BW filter and knock the IS motor and elements completely outta whack. I shipped it out Monday and had it back Thursday. New Orleans to Virginia and back. It was better than new. Canon Professional Service is stellar. I used to sell Sony electronics many years ago. Custom home theater design and whatnot. Sony indeed had and still does one of the single worst customer services and repair systems on Earth. That alone will keep pros queasy. And the lack of glass has already been mentioned to death. That said, Im looking forward to getting my new Canon M ;-)


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 9, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Lack of lens Selection.
> Lack of a Mature Flash system.
> Lack of Ergonomics for Long Handheld use.
> Laggy EVF in Low Light.
> ...



Despite all the above, I still want Fuji 35mm sensor with same body style as x100s.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 9, 2014)

granted we have different uses for our gear but I can not agree with many of your points, I've rebutted within the quote re my experience with Fuji, Olympus and Pentax.



RLPhoto said:


> Lack of lens Selection. - MFT system has a lot of great glass covering UWA to long zoom, Fuji X has the UWA to medium tele covered with long tele coming. The real limitation is MFT ultimate resolution is lower.
> 
> Lack of a Mature Flash system. - I'm not familiar with the Oly yet, I think it has some pretty decent capabilities, but Fuji X system flash is definitely weak. Pentax ML work with existing Pentax kit which is decent, but not extensive
> 
> ...



Viva la MILC! ;D


----------



## DesignJinni (Sep 9, 2014)

I believe ML have really changed how we look at cameras especially with Fuji XT-1 and the native lens which they have and will have soon. Just to be clear ML are not targeted towards sports. But most of us amateurs it should be a very good option to consider and it does complement if one already owns DSLR + lenses
Here is a very good comparison Fuji APSC vs 5D3 Full frame
http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

Here is what Fstoppers have to say: https://fstoppers.com/gear/new-fuji-your-dslr-will-love-hate-9450

There are many professionals who have made the switch because it suits their style of work. Is it for everyone, NO. But it can suit the style of many amateurs photographer and professionals too. Just YouTube and google and you will be able to find many stories related to these.

Some Switch Stories:
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/10/25/switch-from-dslr-to-mirrorless-camera/
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/09/27/10-awesome-professional-photographers-who-use-fuji-x-cameras-for-work/
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/08/23/13-amazing-professional-photographers-who-use-mirrorless-cameras-on-the-job/

Zack Arias: Sensor Size – Crop Or Crap? Thoughts on Fuji Mirrorless with sensor size debate..
http://photographylife.com/zack-arias-full-frame-vs-aps-c-debate


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 9, 2014)

I would imagine that pro wedding photographers have other priorities than megapixels. /they also have to buy a backup camera of similar quality. I would imagine good AF - fast and many 'outer' AF points, also in low light, high flash syncro, good high iso quality, and dynamic range would be higher on the priority list. Perhaps why 5d3 is popular (if it indeed is) I do my share of weddings but i am not a pro wedding photographer, but rather a 'pro' commercial, architecture, portraits etc. Here my 6d has just been perfect. I need and want higher megapixels for my personal photography and for the odd client where I print to size Ao.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 9, 2014)

Aglet said:


> granted we have different uses for our gear but I can not agree with many of your points, I've rebutted within the quote re my experience with Fuji, Olympus and Pentax.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You must be crazy to think ML cams are ready for prime time wedding shooters. Those reasons are perfectly valid as to why 99% of the wedding industry sticks with DSLRs.

Plus we are not talking fuji, we are talking sony. Even with fuji, a lot of that applies. Where am I going to get a 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85 mm 1.2, and on a body comfortable enough to handhold a 70-200II with a big flash all day long? Then when I try to use it in a candle lit reception see the AF and EVF flounder about try to get focus and when it does I can't take the shot because the battery died.

No aglet, ML is not ready for mass adoption for weddings.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 11, 2014)

I do not disagree. In most types of challenging conditions I have more confidence in SLR AF for getting the shot too. In some others, the ML can actually do better.
A fast-paced and chaotic wedding is not the best place for a 'tog with slow gear. Altho if you're old enough to have shot film and manual focus lenses, you might have to concede that today's ML can actually outperform most of those in most situations. Last wedding I shot was a few years ago and slow enough of a pace that I didn't have to run very often and today's ML systems would have handled the whole day just fine.
So ML is not likely to be adopted en masse for wedding work just yet, not when SLRs are available and adequate and their users are more comfortable with them, but MLs are capable of delivering satisfactory results. Some pro's are actually trying Fujis and other ML for weddings and doing OK with the change.
.
They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>
I also don't have any need for the absolute biggest and brightest lenses as that super shallow DoF is not always desireable.
But BIGGER is usually more impressive to a north american audience.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 11, 2014)

Aglet said:


> I do not disagree. In most types of challenging conditions I have more confidence in SLR AF for getting the shot too. In some others, the ML can actually do better.
> A fast-paced and chaotic wedding is not the best place for a 'tog with slow gear. Altho if you're old enough to have shot film and manual focus lenses, you might have to concede that today's ML can actually outperform most of those in most situations. Last wedding I shot was a few years ago and slow enough of a pace that I didn't have to run very often and today's ML systems would have handled the whole day just fine.
> So ML is not likely to be adopted en masse for wedding work just yet, not when SLRs are available and adequate and their users are more comfortable with them, but MLs are capable of delivering satisfactory results. Some pro's are actually trying Fujis and other ML for weddings and doing OK with the change.
> .
> ...


People shoot weddings with leicas, sonys, Panasonics, Iphones etc... but the DSLR will continue to be king until ML can overcome those issues. I'm a fan of reading old film photography books that can be had for less than a coke and One I read on film weddings was they used to pack Big huge Speedotron strobes to use as room lights, shoot 400/800 ISO film and F/8 to get the best focus in manual focus. They used MF for outdoor weddings to get fill flash at higher sync speed and for formals.

However, times have changed and the shallow DOF look is in demand, speed is in demand, and flash is in demand and no flash is in demand especially. I could add a Fuji X100s for its sync speed on certain photos but It would be harder to shoot a whole day with it.

ML isn't there yet, give it another generation cycle, New Speedlites, and A stack of new hyper primes/zooms then we'll might see it catch on. (Which by the time it does, it will be just as heavy as our DSLR's anyway. So what was the point?)


----------



## Woody (Sep 11, 2014)

Aglet said:


> They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>



After I surveyed the weight/price of certain mirrorless lenses such as the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS and Fujifilm 50-140 f/2.8, I decided I'll stick to passe SLR technology. These lenses are not any lighter than Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 11, 2014)

Woody said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>
> ...



The sony 70-200mm G doesn't perform as well either and is more expensive.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 12, 2014)

Woody said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>
> ...



I spent some $$$ renting many sony/zeiss lenses to test with my a7r. The ONLY lens that I feel has best fit is FE 35mm. The next best is FE 55mm. 

I'm thinking selling my a7r and replace with a7s. Hope they will release some UWA prime to match with A7 series thin bodies.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

The normal customer out there is better served with a smaller m43 camera.
Especially when compared to Canon Rebels.

The Rebels offer not much better image quality but they are bigger and lenses are often more expensive.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Sep 12, 2014)

Woody said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>
> ...



Just because you change the body, whatever technology that body uses to capture the image, the physics of the lens optics doesn't change. (At least given the materials we are currently using: glass, plastic, metal, etc.)


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Sep 12, 2014)

I gotta say that I'm with *RLPhoto* on this. I just received the EOS M and while it's nice, it's honestly more of a toy than a useful tool. My S95 is even easier to use. Definitely my SL1 is easier to use. In other words, there are other options that simply work better. Granted the EOS M, while not junk, is not as well done as the Sony (et al) ML offerings but it's still a very convoluted and limited market.

If ML ever becomes as prolific and adoptable as the SLR, that is still many years away. For many of the reasons *RLPhoto* already mentioned. Just making a camera smaller/lighter with decent IQ does not make it a camera to rely on for universal professional use. There is so much more to the equation not the least of which is trust in the company that stands behind it for years/decades to come.


----------

