Mirrorless

Dangermouse

Squeaky Clean
Messages
9,965
Edit My Images
No
Right you lot in the know, I am wanting the same quality as a D500 D4 but mirrorless, whats the best without breaking the bank, I do like the sound of the XT-2 as its all metal but dont know about the Sony or Olympus, are they the same quality bodies or are they more plastic, the camera needs to be rugged and be able to take a few knocks as I now own a Bedlington Border puppy and it does go loopy and knock stuff about a bit when I am out and about, really looking to buy this weekend so I have one for my holiday in a week......…over to you guys.
 
The Sonys aren't plastic, they are magnesium alloy. The XT2 won't be anywhere near as good at AF as your action Nikons. You should instead look at XT3 if you like Fuji, A7iii/A7riii/A9 or A6500/A6400 if you like Sony and Em1 mk2 if you like Olympus, Nikon Z6 or Z7 could make a lot of sense with an FTZ adapter or Canons R. You'll need to ponder your budget and lens line up. Lots of options which is great.
 
Last edited:
I do have a soft spot for Olympus @twist over Fuji or Sony, due to the new doggie I wont be needing anything as fast as the Nikons as she doesn't like fast jets like I do, we are going down the more relaxed route in future, a bit of sport and a lot of landscape, but DSLR is a bit too much to carry with a dog that just wants to play 24hrs
 
I do have a soft spot for Olympus @twist over Fuji or Sony, due to the new doggie I wont be needing anything as fast as the Nikons as she doesn't like fast jets like I do, we are going down the more relaxed route in future, a bit of sport and a lot of landscape, but DSLR is a bit too much to carry with a dog that just wants to play 24hrs

Go for Olympus then, em1 mk2 looks good, although still pretty expensive. @snerkler can you give you lots of advice regarding this specific camera and Oly lenses.
 
Although I do have a soft spot for Olympus (goes back to the late 70s early 80s with the OMs) I do quite fancy the retro look and the name, I want the camera to look as good as it works, the XT-2 is looking to be my choice but unless someone can convince me, I don't need the speed of a D500 just the IQ
 
Not really, depends on your expectations. Could go EM1 body for under £300, or even lower. AFS on the older models is decent, AFC not so much.

What sort of MP are we talking, I keep Googling and getting different numbers for all the Oly stuff, its pretty confusing if you havent had mirrorless before, whats all this 12mp that gives 30-40mp stuff all about, I want to shoot one shot not 8 for 1
 
Older oly m43 started with 12mp, there are lots of current models in the Olympus line with 16mp and a couple of the flagship ones have 20mp. High res modes on the later top end omd and pen-f are good for static subjects but not for stuff that moves.
The E-M5ii might be what you’re looking for as it’s weathersealed etc.
 
Ist this what you mean ……. Olympus OM-D E-M5 MarkII which is for sale here
 
Just had a look, very expensive to try mirrorless

I’ve had D500 and X-T2 at the same time. D500 smokes everything for AF. The Fuji handles well, AF is mostly good enough. The output is superb. Fabulous lens line-up.
Great intro to mirrorless

(I’m currently loving my Z6)
 
Ok so in terms of AF there’s not much that can compare to the D500, obviously the D5 and 1Dx-II but after that I’m struggling to think, I don’t even think the mighty A7-III can match it, although not used one myself.

I’ve had Fuji and Olympus and my preference is for Olympus as I don’t like the rendering from Fuji’s xtrans sensors. Image quality from the Olympus is superb, but clearly it struggles more than APS-C and FF in terms of noise with high ISO (although I found it comparable to Fuji).

AF-S is lightning fast on all OMD models but if you want to shoot anything moving without pulling your hair out in frustration then only the EM1-II and EM1x fit the bill. However the EM1-II isn’t cheap, and the EM1x is crazy expensive.
 
Last edited:
Ok so in terms of AF there’s not much that can compare to the D500, obviously the D5 and 1Dx-II but after that I’m struggling to think, I don’t even think the mighty A7-III can match it, although not used one myself.

I’ve had Fuji and Olympus and my preference is for Olympus as I don’t like the rendering from Fuji’s xtrans sensors. Image quality from the Olympus is superb, but clearly it struggles more than APS-C and FF in terms of noise with high ISO (although I found it comparable to Fuji).

AF-S is lightning fast on all OMD models but if you want to shoot anything moving without pulling your hair out in frustration then only the EM1-II and EM1x fit the bill. However the EM1-II isn’t cheap, and the EM1x is crazy expensive.
what was it about the rendering on the fuji you didnt like Toby?:whistle:
 
what was it about the rendering on the fuji you didnt like Toby?:whistle:

He's about the only person who keeps referring to Fuji issues on here, I want him to show me on the doll where Fuji hurt him :ROFLMAO:

I'm back using Fuji right now and can't make those old artifacts or WORMS appear if I tried, unless I really went OTT on sharpening. Honestly, it's only an issue if you make it so
 
He's about the only person who keeps referring to Fuji issues on here, I want him to show me on the doll where Fuji hurt him :ROFLMAO:

I'm back using Fuji right now and can't make those old artifacts or WORMS appear if I tried, unless I really went OTT on sharpening. Honestly, it's only an issue if you make it so
what have you got the xh1 and panny?
 
I'm back using Fuji right now and can't make those old artifacts or WORMS appear if I tried, unless I really went OTT on sharpening. Honestly, it's only an issue if you make it so
Completely disagree, you can even see some of the odd rendering on jpeg and/or RAW with no sharpening.

I really don’t want to get into it all again though, if folk don’t see it that’s fine (y)
 
what have you got the xh1 and panny?

Sold the G80 last week, just the XH1 ... for now :D

Completely disagree, you can even see some of the odd rendering on jpeg and/or RAW with no sharpening.

I really don’t want to get into it all again though, if folk don’t see it that’s fine (y)


You can disagree all you want, I'm actually using Fuji gear, and like the last time I did, I'm not seeing these awful issues that you do. If I was really concerned I'd not have gone back. If you don't want to get into it, then perhaps stop bringing it up or hinting at it every single time you mention Fuji ... just an idea ;)
 
You are right it doesn’t match, it is much better than the D500 and the A9 is better again.
Interesting, although I’d have to see it to believe it tbh. Also, I feel that “much better” could be a bit strong as the D500 acquisition is pretty much instant, and accuracy is top notch so how you get “much better” I don’t know?
 
Dslr are usually more instantaneous to start up and fire, ML cameras tend to need a second or two to really get going, that's from off to shooting - I've not used either but I'd be surprised if the A7III was faster to boot and get firing than the D500. With both active it might be a different story?
 
I owned a D500 and an A9 (I no longer have the D500). The AF on both is very quick, however, the A9, with the latest firmware update, is much better than the D500 (IMHO). I used top end lenses on both and the A9 came out the winner for me. The D500 is more than adequate as a camera, so is the additional cost of the A9 and lenses justified for the extra performance? That, my friends, is a question only the individual can answer.
 
Interesting, although I’d have to see it to believe it tbh. Also, I feel that “much better” could be a bit strong as the D500 acquisition is pretty much instant, and accuracy is top notch so how you get “much better” I don’t know?

I had a D500 for about 6 months or so, a.f for a dslr was good but not in the same league as the A7III.

Because of the on sensor a.f you just can’t miss focus with the A7III, A9 unless it’s user error. The D500 and in fact any dslr can’t compete with that. The Sony A6400 is better than the D500 too and maybe a better comparison with it being an APSC body..
 
Last edited:
Hire one from a shop to compare. You have had several top notch cameras and sold them all so I think there is a problem there somewhere.
 
I had a D500 for about 6 months or so, a.f for a dslr was good but not in the same league as the A7III.

Because of the on sensor a.f you just can’t miss focus with the A7III, A9 unless it’s user error. The D500 and in fact any dslr can’t compete with that. The Sony A6400 is better than the D500 too and maybe a better comparison with it being an APSC body..
That's impressive then (y). It's a 'weird' one with AF though on mirrorless as obviously when they're using CDAF they will of course be 100% accurate (assuming they're working correctly), with hybrid they should again be 100% accurate (although not always the case) and with PDAF only they're open to the same AF focus issues of DSLR as I believe it's more down to the algorithms than the fact the AF points being on the sensor itself. What I personally find frustrating is that manufacturers appear to be reluctant to say when their cameras are using CDAF, when it's hybrid and when it's PDAF only. With this information it 'might' be possible to only use CDAF and Hybrid and therefore improve accuracy even more.
 
That's impressive then (y). It's a 'weird' one with AF though on mirrorless as obviously when they're using CDAF they will of course be 100% accurate (assuming they're working correctly), with hybrid they should again be 100% accurate (although not always the case) and with PDAF only they're open to the same AF focus issues of DSLR as I believe it's more down to the algorithms than the fact the AF points being on the sensor itself. What I personally find frustrating is that manufacturers appear to be reluctant to say when their cameras are using CDAF, when it's hybrid and when it's PDAF only. With this information it 'might' be possible to only use CDAF and Hybrid and therefore improve accuracy even more.

Not sure if accuracy on the Sony bodies can be improved much more, it's far and away the biggest benefit of the system. It's almost too good so you often end up up with more files than needed. It is difficult to get out of the dlsr habit built up over many years to overshoot to allow for a.f issues.
 
Right you lot in the know, I am wanting the same quality as a D500 D4 but mirrorless,

Because others are jumping on the mirrorless bandwagon and becoming fanboys?

Unless you desperately need some feature which m'less offers there's no point switching. And look into the disadvantages the fanboys gloss over too. One person's game-changing feature is another's irrelevance.
 
Because others are jumping on the mirrorless bandwagon and becoming fanboys?

Unless you desperately need some feature which m'less offers there's no point switching. And look into the disadvantages the fanboys gloss over too. One person's game-changing feature is another's irrelevance.

I actually agree with the sentiment of that even though I have switched over completely too mirrorless.

For an amateur photographer that is just taking photos for their own enjoyment, if they already have a decent dslr set up there isn't going to be a night and day advantage.

For a working photographer those small advantages can add up to be too be a huge advantage though, although possibly not for everyone.

As a wedding photographer there are some things on the mirrorless systems that just make work easier and faster and that for me was well worth investing in.

E.V.F - being able to see what you get is a huge bonus, that shouldn't be underestimated. It has made a huge difference for me and allows for more creativity.

100% reliable A.F - This of course is a huge difference, I can have complete faith that if something isn't right it is my fault not the equipment. This has allowed me to deliver more images to clients. I am sure any wedding photographer that has used a dslr will agree that at every wedding there is a decision to make on at least a few images that are slightly out of focus, in terms of if they should be provided to the client or not. That's no longer an issue, the a.f performance is now so good.

Not having to tune lenses - For an amateur photographer this may not be a big issue. However when you have a large amount of glass it's a pain staking annoying process that takes up time and is frustrating. Over time focus shifts as well so it's something that needs to be constantly kept on top of. When I shot dslr's I felt I had to retune all of my lenses every 2-3 months to keep on top of it. This was especially annoying when buying a new lens and over the years I returned many lenses that where too far out to tune correctly. Just as one example I had 5 copies of the Sigma 50mm Art that had to be returned for front and back focus issues.

Lighter weight - Yes, the weight savings aren't huge you can't beat physics and high end glass will be generally as heavy on mirrorless systems. However there are some very high quality light weight lenses around like the Sony 24mm f/1.4 G.M (the lightest 24mm f/1.4 available from any manufacturer) The bodies are lighter weight than the pro dslr bodies. Those small difference on a 10-12 hour wedding day, make a huge difference. Before I switched to mirrorless I would come home from a wedding absolutely exhausted and would often just dump everything and head straight for bed. The next day I would still be knackered. Not any more.

Quality of the lenses - The high end mirrorless lenses are pretty spectacular, add all the in camera corrections on mirrorless bodies and they are a treat to use. Newer equipment is always improving. When I shot dslr's I absolutely loved the Nikon 85mm f/1.4, the Sony 85mm f/1.4 G.M is a much better lens and I much prefer its rendering as you would expect as the Nikon lens is a much older design.

Silent shooting - When I shot dslr's there where often moments that I felt like I was intruding due to the shutter noise. I still took the photos but it made me feel uncomfortable.

Software improvements - The manufacturers seem to find it easier to provide software updates on mirrorless gear that make a difference than they did with dslr's. I can't really think of any software update that Nikon ever provided for my dslr's that made any real difference. These where generally just to fix issues. Sony have added animal eye a.f via a firmware update, improved the already great a.f system on the A9 and who knows what will come next.

Those are the main advantages for me but if I was just shooting stuff for myself I would have been just as happy using the Nikon D750's I moved away from and probably wouldn't have considered changing until I had too.

If I was an amateur photographer and starting from scratch I wouldn't bother with full frame any more and would pick up an A6400, which is a superb little camera and a few prime lenses like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
 
Last edited:
I've just come back from Wales and gave my EM5 MK2 and mirrorless IR cameras a good old test out alongside my Pentax K3ii to see which system and type of camera I'd prefer with the thought of selling the other system.

The EM5 was more pleasurable to shoot, you can see what you're going to get before you pull the trigger, you don't have to cover the bloody viewfinder on long exposures (yes I forgot on the Pentax a few times) and all in all 16MP is more than enough for large prints for the wall.

I'd go for a EM5MK2 if you're just trying it out.

There's one in the classifieds at the moment. I know the seller and the camera's hardly been used.
 
I actually agree with the sentiment of that even though I have switched over completely too mirrorless.

For an amateur photographer that is just taking photos for their own enjoyment, if they already have a decent dslr set up there isn't going to be a night and day advantage.

For a working photographer those small advantages can add up to be too be a huge advantage though, although possibly not for everyone.

As a wedding photographer there are some things on the mirrorless systems that just make work easier and faster and that for me was well worth investing in.

E.V.F - being able to see what you get is a huge bonus, that shouldn't be underestimated. It has made a huge difference for me and allows for more creativity.

100% reliable A.F - This of course is a huge difference, I can have complete faith that if something isn't right it is my fault not the equipment. This has allowed me to deliver more images to clients. I am sure any wedding photographer that has used a dslr will agree that at every wedding there is a decision to make on at least a few images that are slightly out of focus, in terms of if they should be provided to the client or not. That's no longer an issue, the a.f performance is now so good.

Not having to tune lenses - For an amateur photographer this may not be a big issue. However when you have a large amount of glass it's a pain staking annoying process that takes up time and is frustrating. Over time focus shifts as well so it's something that needs to be constantly kept on top of. When I shot dslr's I felt I had to retune all of my lenses every 2-3 months to keep on top of it. This was especially annoying when buying a new lens and over the years I returned many lenses that where too far out to tune correctly. Just as one example I had 5 copies of the Sigma 50mm Art that had to be returned for front and back focus issues.

Lighter weight - Yes, the weight savings aren't huge you can't beat physics and high end glass will be generally as heavy on mirrorless systems. However there are some very high quality light weight lenses around like the Sony 24mm f/1.4 G.M (the lightest 24mm f/1.4 available from any manufacturer) The bodies are lighter weight than the pro dslr bodies. Those small difference on a 10-12 hour wedding day, make a huge difference. Before I switched to mirrorless I would come home from a wedding absolutely exhausted and would often just dump everything and head straight for bed. The next day I would still be knackered. Not any more.

Quality of the lenses - The high end mirrorless lenses are pretty spectacular, add all the in camera corrections on mirrorless bodies and they are a treat to use. Newer equipment is always improving. When I shot dslr's I absolutely loved the Nikon 85mm f/1.4, the Sony 85mm f/1.4 G.M is a much better lens and I much prefer its rendering as you would expect as the Nikon lens is a much older design.

Silent shooting - When I shot dslr's there where often moments that I felt like I was intruding due to the shutter noise. I still took the photos but it made me feel uncomfortable.

Software improvements - The manufacturers seem to find it easier to provide software updates on mirrorless gear that make a difference than they did with dslr's. I can't really think of any software update that Nikon ever provided for my dslr's that made any real difference. These where generally just to fix issues. Sony have added animal eye a.f via a firmware update, improved the already great a.f system on the A9 and who knows what will come next.

Those are the main advantages for me but if I was just shooting stuff for myself I would have been just as happy using the Nikon D750's I moved away from and probably wouldn't have considered changing until I had too.

If I was an amateur photographer and starting from scratch I wouldn't bother with full frame any more and would pick up an A6400, which is a superb little camera and a few prime lenses like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
You've evaluated the benefits and decided in favour of them - for you. Which is the way it should be. (y)

Of all those features you list only silent shooting has any interest for me, the others don't even enter my thinking (and I have used mirrorless) , so it's not worth the cost of changing.
 
Because others are jumping on the mirrorless bandwagon and becoming fanboys?

Unless you desperately need some feature which m'less offers there's no point switching. And look into the disadvantages the fanboys gloss over too. One person's game-changing feature is another's irrelevance.

So does that make you a DSLR fanboy?
 
So does that make you a DSLR fanboy?
As I also have a mirrorless camera and a couple of compacts, all of which get used when I find them best suited, I guess so. (y)
 
For an amateur photographer that is just taking photos for their own enjoyment, if they already have a decent dslr set up there isn't going to be a night and day advantage.

I wouldn't describe myself as a photographer, all I want to do is take pictures of people and places I love and the odd interesting tree, flower and leaf... but there are two absolutely massive advantages with mirrorless for me.

One is being able to play with cheap old manual lenses and focus very easily anywhere within the frame with the in view aids and the second is being able to AF anywhere in the frame with face detect. This allows compositions which just wouldn't be possible with a DSLR with its focus points clustered around a central area and it lets me concentrate on the composition and capturing the moment and the picture whilst leaving the camera to focus on my subjects face wherever it is in the frame. Focusing and recomposing or compromising on the composition with a DSLR seems so last century now.

Plus there are other advantages like no MA to worry about and being able to see the DoF and the exposure, these are also very nice things to have.
 
Sorry, lazy me :D Micro Adjust... when you adjust the lenses on a DSLR for front or back focus. Mirrorless systems don't need this as focus is taken off the sensor, with DSLR's the focus is not taken off the sensor unless you're in live view mode, and is usually decided by the focus sensor which can lead to errors and can vary from camera to camera.

See here for a fun little write up that perfectly explains the possible issues...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/
 
Sorry, lazy me :D Micro Adjust... when you adjust the lenses on a DSLR for front or back focus. Mirrorless systems don't need this as focus is taken off the sensor, with DSLR's the focus is not taken off the sensor unless you're in live view mode, and is usually decided by the focus sensor which can lead to errors and can vary from camera to camera.

See here for a fun little write up that perfectly explains the possible issues...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/
I hear this said a lot BUT I’m not sure it’s strictly true. I don’t believe all focus errors are due to the off sensor AF module and are in part due to the way phase detect works. This would seem substantiated by the fact that you can still micro adjust mirrorless cameras.

I’m happy to be proven wrong (as always) but if mirrorless completely negated focus errors then there would be no need for manufacturers to include micro adjustments. Also, my 85mm f1.8 back focuses slightly on my Z7.
 
I hear this said a lot BUT I’m not sure it’s strictly true. I don’t believe all focus errors are due to the off sensor AF module and are in part due to the way phase detect works. This would seem substantiated by the fact that you can still micro adjust mirrorless cameras.

I’m happy to be proven wrong (as always) but if mirrorless completely negated focus errors then there would be no need for manufacturers to include micro adjustments. Also, my 85mm f1.8 back focuses slightly on my Z7.

Phase detect has its issues too. I don't know if it's still there these days but back when I had Canon DSLR's (and maybe it was the same for Nikon and everyone else) it said on their web site that if you took three pictures of the same subject you'd see focus differences between them and this was normal. So there's that. The normal slightly hit or miss nature of it and then I suppose there's the possibility of alignment issues and that must be a significant factor otherwise how could we account for a lens being poor on one body and better on another?

What mirrorless can you MA? The only case I'm aware of is when MA-ing DSLR lenses using an adapter which gives phase detect. Generally I think it's still truism that you get much less variability with mirrorless and probably to the point that it isn't an issue except in very specific instances.
 
I hear this said a lot BUT I’m not sure it’s strictly true. I don’t believe all focus errors are due to the off sensor AF module and are in part due to the way phase detect works. This would seem substantiated by the fact that you can still micro adjust mirrorless cameras.

I’m happy to be proven wrong (as always) but if mirrorless completely negated focus errors then there would be no need for manufacturers to include micro adjustments. Also, my 85mm f1.8 back focuses slightly on my Z7.

You mentioned this before. Like I said the last time micro adjust on the Sony mirrorless bodies is only there to allow you to micro adjust A mount lenses when using the adaptor. It is not to be used for e-mount lenses.

I would be very concerned if you are having issues with your 85mm. All of the lenses I have bought for my Sony bodies have been perfect and I don’t know of anyone that had any issues with front or back focusing even with the very cheap lenses. A few people have had issues with hunting and eye a.f with some of the really cheap glass but you have to expect that really.
 
Last edited:
I have bit the bullet and gone for X-T2 don't get me wrong, the D500 was amazing but its the sheer size with a decent lens that is stopping me get another as I now want smaller, lighter and more manageable when camping as I will have a mental puppy with me in future.
 
Right you lot in the know, I am wanting the same quality as a D500 D4 but mirrorless, whats the best without breaking the bank, I do like the sound of the XT-2 as its all metal but dont know about the Sony or Olympus, are they the same quality bodies or are they more plastic, the camera needs to be rugged and be able to take a few knocks as I now own a Bedlington Border puppy and it does go loopy and knock stuff about a bit when I am out and about, really looking to buy this weekend so I have one for my holiday in a week......…over to you guys.

Honestly - the D500 sounds like the one and you aready have one.

Last week a workshop client turned up with an A7R3 and I got to use it whilst demonstrating it. One thing I liked was that in live view (well it's always in live view) it would show you the blinkies in the back screen and EVF to help judge exposure.

I didn't rate the EVF over the OVF and I thought the camera felt quite small and cheap. Nice sensor and all that but over an SLR camera I didn't see what it offered.

The Sony is widely regarded as the best of them but having also had a workshop client with a D500 4 weeks back I was bowled over by it - to the point I am contemplating getting one. I couldn't say that about the A7.

If you are happy with an APSC sensor a D500 is the best camera you can buy. If you want a 35mm sensor - get a D850.
 
Back
Top