Reasons to go Mirror-less?

[johnf3f]

Apologies but you are making some rather sweeping statements and I do think that you are maybe a little out of touch with what the current market leading kit can do. I do think that rather than making rather all encompassing statements it's best to stick to specifics or at least as specific as we can be.

Your comment about the long lens is specific without being but maybe that's the end of it for you... but on your other points I do think you're being rather dismissive and perhaps doing so without being fully informed.

For example, I only have basic mirrorless kit but some of it when fitted with the right lens focuses for all intents and purposes instantly. All I have to do is point the camera and press the shutter button and by the time my finger has gone from half to full press the gear has metered and focused and it takes that shot. That's just a small example which does seem to contradict your view that with mirrorless you can only photograph where your subject has been... but as I said these things need to be specifics and if you think about your specific needs and if a mirrorless camera can meet them or not dispassionately and objectively and come to the same conclusion then fair enough

If you only believe your own experience (and why not) that's all well and good too but surely it's best to try the best before writing off everything? But generally I think I'm knocking my head against a brick wall here and I think the issue is that you've made your mind up already.

If you re-read my last post you will see that I try out gear rather than rely on "Reviews" etc. Luckily, around here many togs are happy to let me try their gear (as am I) so I get a larger number of opportunities to play with widely differing gear than many, though I have not tried everything!

As to focal lengths - they just do not make what I need - end of. As to "but some of it when fitted with the right lens focuses for all intents and purposes instantly" then we must have different ideas of instant - well each to their own. Focus speed is the main reason I prefer the higher voltage batteries - Canon and Nikon agree.

As to "sweeping" and "all encompassing statements"? Well, lower voltage batteries is a simple statement of fact, no integral vertical grip - fact, no high quality long enough lenses - fact, do I need to go on? All encompassing and sweeping perhaps, but that is the situation as it stands today.

If and when it changes I will naturally re-evaluate my gear, who wouldn't? Sony, above all others IMO, are making great progress but they still have a way to go before they will be a viable alternative for my uses - they certainly can do it but they just haven't done it yet.

 

[Mr Badger]

I still have the EOD30, Eye control AF in that is not really that good, not reliable enough to rely on it. May be if they do it again, they can make it better, especially with focusing of something like the Sony of almost 700 focus points.

After calibrating it to my eye I can get pretty much a 100% hit rate on selecting the 7 AF points on my EOS 30 (it should be remembered that if it selects the point but doesn't 'lock on' to achieve focus it's not the fault of the ECF system, it's just the AF point didn't achieve focus); but it's a bit more hit and miss on the 45 AF points on my EOS-3, I have to concentrate more to hold my eye on the exact focus point and not let it wander at the last minute! But that was technology from 20 or so years ago, and I still miss it when I switch from the 30 or the 3 back to a modern DSLR.

Almost 700 focus points? Bearing in mind the conversation about size and weight of modern cameras, would you say that many AF points was necessary and makes a noticeable difference?

 

[Pete B]

Almost 700 focus points? Bearing in mind the conversation about size and weight of modern cameras, would you say that many AF points was necessary and makes a noticeable difference?

I had one of the first Olympus compact AF 35mm cameras. It only had two focus points.
1. What I wanted in focus.
2. What I didn't want in focus.
It made the wrong decision in both of the rolls of film that I owned it for.
Sold it to a junk shop.

 

[johnf3f]

Have you really looked at what’s available these days or just stating history , A/F no problems with mine on the Panasonic g80 ( which btw is mid range) plenty of options of focus points to .

Batteries well I get around 400 shots per battery in that camera and carry a spare that weighs a couple of ounces in my pocket if needed , my Olympus om10 mk2 I dunno not yet been able to run the battery down .

Robust bodies ,well not yet encountered a problem , but a camera is a optical instrument and a expensive one so always handled with care anyway

A viable optical v/f well that’s never gonna happen as there’s no mirror , but the latest EVF ones are as good as if not better than optical ones . I can track b.i.f with mine easily and for perched birds or static animals I can rattle off large high speed bursts faster and more accurately than with my previous 4 times heavier DSLR

Oh and lens length well I previously used a sigma 150-600 sport ,I now use a Leica 100-400 but with a 2x crop factor it outreaches the sigma .

And finally weight and price my camera and long range lens are around a quarter of the previous weight and a lot cheaper as well

Thanks for your thoughts, and yes I have tried that lens - a friend has one. I am not certain of the exact model of camera body he has as memory fails me. He absolutely loves it mainly due to the weight and only having to bring one lens - he is an active 87! I was quite impressed by the build and functionality as well as what could be achieved with such a small setup and it certainly has it's place, especially where mobility is concerned.

However a 400mm (100-400) lens on a 2 x crop sensor it not the same as an 800mm lens on an FF sensor. I don't carry all this clag around for fun!

If you ever get down to South Wales let me know and you are welcome to have a play with my cameras/lenses and see what you think. I do get up to North Wales once or twice a year (little village a 6 miles north west of Porthmadog) but it is normally in the winter so the weather tends to be pants!

 

[chris malcolm]

I don't think they are waiting for AF tech for the adaptor at all rather they killed the A-mount and never made an announcement.

Not only did they not announce that they'd dropped the A-mount, whenever Sony executives were asked about the A-mount they insisted that A-mount development was continuing.

All signs points to E-mount being the future and really, the future of where Sony is headed is here now.

Not all signs. Since the E-mount's rapid development of completely mirrorless technology and stocking up the arsenal of E-mount lenses the A-mount developments shifted to the enthusiast and professional level cameras. Despite all the armchair prophets saying the A-mount was dead every time there was more than six months without a new camera body or lens Sony continued with its usual schedule of 3-4 years to upgrade its top models.

For example, the Sony A700 came out in 2007, the A77 in 2011, the A77ii in 2014. So we could conclude that the A-mount APSC line might be dead if an upgrade doesn't happen this year, or just a little slowed down if it appears in 2019. The full frame A900 appeared in 2008, the A99 in 2012, and the A99ii in 2016. So we could conclude that the A-mount full frame line might be dead if an upgrade doesn't happen in 2018, or just a little delayed if it appears in 2019. So going by Sony's historically established updating schedule, we can't really accuse their executives of lying about the future of the A-mount until 2019 has passed without a new A-mount camera.

My conclusion is that the rumours of the A-mount's death while we're still only half way through 2018 are rather premature

I do however agree with you that the future is mirrorless. The mirror is not an essential feature of the A-mount, anymore than the mirror flapping up and down as in the earlier A-mount DSLRs was. When the need for the A-mount mirror disappears Sony has the opportunity to modernise the A-mount, and offer a bigger mirrorless camera body series with more controls, bigger batteries, and more space for extra technology inside than the E-mount can offer, such as more sensor movement in order to offer some in-camera tilt-shift. The E-mount started life making a selling point of being as small and light as possible, an advantage with which to offset what then were the disadvantages of mirrorless compared to DSLR. Now that they've introduced the full frame version and professional levels of AF performance that tiny compactness has become more of a problem than a virtue.

 

[the black fox]

Thanks for your thoughts, and yes I have tried that lens - a friend has one. I am not certain of the exact model of camera body he has as memory fails me. He absolutely loves it mainly due to the weight and only having to bring one lens - he is an active 87! I was quite impressed by the build and functionality as well as what could be achieved with such a small setup and it certainly has it's place, especially where mobility is concerned.

However a 400mm (100-400) lens on a 2 x crop sensor it not the same as an 800mm lens on an FF sensor. I don't carry all this clag around for fun!

If you ever get down to South Wales let me know and you are welcome to have a play with my cameras/lenses and see what you think. I do get up to North Wales once or twice a year (little village a 6 miles north west of Porthmadog) but it is normally in the winter so the weather tends to be pants!

TBH I dont give a monkeys arse whether what I have now equals what I could get from a full frame ,been down that road ,wrote the book wore the t.shirt etc. . all I know is that I can quiet happily go out in the winter onto the marshes and not have to schlep a huge backpack and tripod with me ,if I deem I'm gonna be in one spot for a while waiting on the owls I'll take either my c/f monopod or my c/f tripod and gimbal . will I get the same i.q who knows but it certainly looks that way from pics I have published so far . whether the light will be sufficient with that set up in winter remains to be seen ,but im sat here waiting on a 300 mm lens at the moment

 

[Deleted member 49428]

>SNIP
However a 400mm (100-400) lens on a 2 x crop sensor it not the same as an 800mm lens on an FF sensor. I don't carry all this clag around for fun!
SNIP<

EHH what? I'm missing something here. Would you care to elaborate?
I would think field of view would be the same but DoF different due to a shorter focal lenght.

 

[john.margetts]

That does seem like that way, most people who talk about mirrorless, they usually refer to m4/3 and the main reason is size. It seems either people are really shy taking out a big camera or too old and weak now to carry the same size body they used to be able to. Perhaps eventually I will be there too but right now, I am happy to take advantage of all that FF can offer, still mirrorless, just FF mirrorless.

If I want light, I'll just take 1 lens.

Size is frequently important. When having a romantic dinner with Bestbeloved, carrying a large DSLR with a larger lens will remove the romantic aspect and quite possibly the dinner aspect as well. There are many other situations when the main activity precludes carrying large kit but I still want to have a camera with me.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Size is frequently important. When having a romantic dinner with Bestbeloved, carrying a large DSLR with a larger lens will remove the romantic aspect and quite possibly the dinner aspect as well. There are many other situations when the main activity precludes carrying large kit but I still want to have a camera with me.

I’m not shy carrying a DSLR to a posh dinner but with the beloved I leave it at home. I’m happy with a phone photo for those occasions.

 

[Mr Badger]

I’m not shy carrying a DSLR to a posh dinner but with the beloved I leave it at home. I’m happy with a phone photo for those occasions.

Yes, plus you can text your mates and regularly check TP for new posts.

PS Don't let her catch you laughing at this!

 

[john.margetts]

I’m happy with a phone photo for those occasions.

Which I am sure does not involve a mirror. [emoji6]

 

[Raymond Lin]

A phone is technically a mirrorless camera

 

[woof woof]

If you re-read my last post you will see that I try out gear rather than rely on "Reviews" etc. Luckily, around here many togs are happy to let me try their gear (as am I) so I get a larger number of opportunities to play with widely differing gear than many, though I have not tried everything!

As to focal lengths - they just do not make what I need - end of. As to "but some of it when fitted with the right lens focuses for all intents and purposes instantly" then we must have different ideas of instant - well each to their own. Focus speed is the main reason I prefer the higher voltage batteries - Canon and Nikon agree.

As to "sweeping" and "all encompassing statements"? Well, lower voltage batteries is a simple statement of fact, no integral vertical grip - fact, no high quality long enough lenses - fact, do I need to go on? All encompassing and sweeping perhaps, but that is the situation as it stands today.

If and when it changes I will naturally re-evaluate my gear, who wouldn't? Sony, above all others IMO, are making great progress but they still have a way to go before they will be a viable alternative for my uses - they certainly can do it but they just haven't done it yet.

Oh dear I do wish I hadn't replied to you the 1st time...

Yes I read your post. Did you read your own and mine? Yes you made sweeping statements but I have better things to do than nit pick your posts and remind you what you posted. Sorry Have a nice life

 

[Raymond Lin]

Not only did they not announce that they'd dropped the A-mount, whenever Sony executives were asked about the A-mount they insisted that A-mount development was continuing.


Not all signs. Since the E-mount's rapid development of completely mirrorless technology and stocking up the arsenal of E-mount lenses the A-mount developments shifted to the enthusiast and professional level cameras. Despite all the armchair prophets saying the A-mount was dead every time there was more than six months without a new camera body or lens Sony continued with its usual schedule of 3-4 years to upgrade its top models.

For example, the Sony A700 came out in 2007, the A77 in 2011, the A77ii in 2014. So we could conclude that the A-mount APSC line might be dead if an upgrade doesn't happen this year, or just a little slowed down if it appears in 2019. The full frame A900 appeared in 2008, the A99 in 2012, and the A99ii in 2016. So we could conclude that the A-mount full frame line might be dead if an upgrade doesn't happen in 2018, or just a little delayed if it appears in 2019. So going by Sony's historically established updating schedule, we can't really accuse their executives of lying about the future of the A-mount until 2019 has passed without a new A-mount camera.

My conclusion is that the rumours of the A-mount's death while we're still only half way through 2018 are rather premature

I do however agree with you that the future is mirrorless. The mirror is not an essential feature of the A-mount, anymore than the mirror flapping up and down as in the earlier A-mount DSLRs was. When the need for the A-mount mirror disappears Sony has the opportunity to modernise the A-mount, and offer a bigger mirrorless camera body series with more controls, bigger batteries, and more space for extra technology inside than the E-mount can offer, such as more sensor movement in order to offer some in-camera tilt-shift. The E-mount started life making a selling point of being as small and light as possible, an advantage with which to offset what then were the disadvantages of mirrorless compared to DSLR. Now that they've introduced the full frame version and professional levels of AF performance that tiny compactness has become more of a problem than a virtue.

For your sake I hope you are right, but whenever I hear things like “we are in full support of X”, more than not is a delay tactic to keep people asking the question happy. Be it in football “We are 100% behind David Moyes.” Or Sony’s seemingly “support” for the PS Vita, or even Nintendo’s support for the 3DS. So I rather look at the release schedule for the system as evidence, does the A-mount have many lenses coming up? If in Photokina shows nothing for the A-mount then I would think that would the nail in the coffin.

 

[chris malcolm]

For me mirror-less is simply a no go (except for landscapes) as the AF/batteries/tracking/lenses/viewfinder/bodies (etc) are simply not up to what I need or are not made = mirror-less is just not there for me.

I am sure this will change in the future, but without bigger (higher voltage batteries), larger and more robust bodies + a viable optical TTL viewfinder - I can't see it happening soon.

We will see.............

Mirrorless have lower voltage batteries? [Quick google] Well those that immediately popped up in the search have the usual 7-8V double cell lithium that at least most DSLRs have. So if you want the usual DSLR battery voltage in a mirrorless there's certainly at least some available.

 

[sk66]

However a 400mm (100-400) lens on a 2 x crop sensor it not the same as an 800mm lens on an FF sensor. I don't carry all this clag around for fun!

EHH what? I'm missing something here. Would you care to elaborate?
I would think field of view would be the same but DoF different due to a shorter focal lenght.

If you go down the road of "equivalence" the images could be the same in ISO noise (total light), DOF, and SS. But there is likely to be practical reasons why that isn't possible. If you just compare images taken with the same settings/composition taken from the same position, then the 2x crop will have about 1 stop more DOF and be noisier (less total light).

But there are other more significant differences IMO. For the same composition the details are being projected onto the 2x CF sensor at 1/2 size (1/4 area). That means both the lens and the sensor must be able to resolve down to that level... that is extremely hard to do with a distant subject where the details are very small to start with. Even at shorter distances it is much harder for a lens/sensor to resolve to those kind of levels. And then the recorded (physical) sensor area has to be enlarged 2x as much for the same size display, which will make any issues more apparent.

Larger sensors win because (with the same settings) they actually get more total light, they are less demanding of lens/aperture, and they require less enlargement... that's very hard to compete with. Now, that's not to say you actually need, or will actually make use of, the greater capability of the FF sensor... it's quite possible you don't/won't.
There is a reason I own a 1" system as well as the massive FF system.

 

[sk66]

My primary reason for owning mirrorless is size/weight. And for that I went well away from FF to the 1" CX system, accepting all of the tradeoffs.

The only reasons I personally would own FF mirrorless is for a truly silent shutter, and for the ability to take images at a high frame rate using live view on a flippy screen.

 

[johnf3f]

TBH I dont give a monkeys arse whether what I have now equals what I could get from a full frame ,been down that road ,wrote the book wore the t.shirt etc. . all I know is that I can quiet happily go out in the winter onto the marshes and not have to schlep a huge backpack and tripod with me ,if I deem I'm gonna be in one spot for a while waiting on the owls I'll take either my c/f monopod or my c/f tripod and gimbal . will I get the same i.q who knows but it certainly looks that way from pics I have published so far . whether the light will be sufficient with that set up in winter remains to be seen ,but im sat here waiting on a 300 mm lens at the moment

Please ignore "Thanks for your thoughts" from my previous reply, I realise that I was mistaken in my interest in your observations, sorry - my mistake.

 

[johnf3f]

Oh dear I do wish I hadn't replied to you the 1st time...

Yes I read your post. Did you read your own and mine? Yes you made sweeping statements but I have better things to do than nit pick your posts and remind you what you posted. Sorry Have a nice life

I am having a great one thanks! Hope you are too!

 

[GreenNinja67]

Time for someone's nappy change?

 

[johnf3f]

If you go down the road of "equivalence" the images could be the same in ISO noise (total light), DOF, and SS. But there is likely to be practical reasons why that isn't possible. If you just compare images taken with the same settings/composition taken from the same position, then the 2x crop will have about 1 stop more DOF and be noisier (less total light).

But there are other more significant differences IMO. For the same composition the details are being projected onto the 2x CF sensor at 1/2 size (1/4 area). That means both the lens and the sensor must be able to resolve down to that level... that is extremely hard to do with a distant subject where the details are very small to start with. Even at shorter distances it is much harder for a lens/sensor to resolve to those kind of levels. And then the recorded (physical) sensor area has to be enlarged 2x as much for the same size display, which will make any issues more apparent.

Larger sensors win because (with the same settings) they actually get more total light, they are less demanding of lens/aperture, and they require less enlargement... that's very hard to compete with. Now, that's not to say you actually need, or will actually make use of, the greater capability of the FF sensor... it's quite possible you don't/won't.
There is a reason I own a 1" system as well as the massive FF system.

You explained that FAR better than I could!

 

[GreenNinja67]

Thanks John

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Observations:

(1) it would appear from most peoples observations that weight is the main reason to change to Mirror-less. (accept that others have given some other reasons)
(2) If I want to stay full frame then the weight saving of 'the system' is negligible.
(3) I can't afford two digital systems and do not want to move away from full frame.
(4) Tried a Sony A7 & I don't like the EVF (it may take some getting used to). I hate the way it overlays exposure and other details on the image; prefer the OVF where all shutter speeds/ISO etc are on a separate LCD/LED readout. Plus I felt a bit of eyestrain which I think might be flicker induced.
(5) If I want small & light I will continue to take the film 35mm F3. (I prefer to shoot film most of the time anyway but sometimes you just 'fancy' digital for it's simplicity )
(6) Decision - although I love gadgets changing to mirror-less at this point would just be a very expensive purchase for no benefits at all to my photography, it would be just 'to have a new gadget' - I've no problem people changing for this reason but I can't justify it!

Thanks for everybody's time in replying to this - the reason i asked here and just didn't go to a shop is I am so gullible and a sales mans dream - I would have walked out with a camera I didn't really want.

 

[Raymond Lin]

FF mirrorless can be small, if you don’t go for the fastest aperture lenses.

35/2.8 tiny
55/1.8 tiny
Tamron 28-75 reasonable

If you have to have 1.4 glass then you are getting DSLR size lenses.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

FF mirrorless can be small, if you don’t go for the fastest aperture lenses.

35/2.8 tiny
55/1.8 tiny
Tamron 28-75 reasonable

If you have to have 1.4 glass then you are getting DSLR size lenses.

Unfortunately Raymond those focal lengths wouldn't suit my needs for what I want digital for.

 

[Pete B]

Unfortunately Raymond those focal lengths wouldn't suit my needs for what I want digital for.

What sort of focal lengths/images/genre?

 

[Fraser Euan White]

What sort of focal lengths/images/genre?

Motorsport - with having to shoot from behind barriers/safety fencing I need a fairly long lens. (400+mm). The large body of the camera actually helps the balance and changing to a mirrorless probably wouldn't save that much weight on the overall package.

Porsche 3 by Fraser White, on Flickr

 

[Phil V]

@Fraser Euan White
Once you have a 400mm lens, the difference in the weight between a DSLR and a mirrorless is negligible, I don’t know what the current fashion is but I’m guessing mirrorless haven’t really got a foothold for sports and wildlife the way they have for other genres.

But if we’re honest, do we need the FF sensor? A 200mm on an m4/3 body or a 250mm on APSC is a significant saving.

Tried a Sony A7 & I don't like the EVF (it may take some getting used to). I hate the way it overlays exposure and other details on the image; prefer the OVF where all shutter speeds/ISO etc are on a separate LCD/LED readout. Plus I felt a bit of eyestrain which I think might be flicker induced.

The vf is totally customisable, you can have as much or as little overlay as you like, and the latest EVFs are flicker free to my eye (and I’m picky about that sort of thing, when I worked in IT I could spot a flickering monitor from 20yds)

 

[mark.roper]

I guess the only way you really save size / weight with mirrorless is if you also drop sensor size, FF -v- m4/3 the differences become really pronounced when you start adding big lenses :-



Olympus EM1.2 with 300mm f/4 -v- Nikon D5 with 600mm f/4

I have the Olly EM1.2 and bought it specifically for motorsports (at which it excels, certainly as far as frame-rate + auto-focus is concerned), but most of my involvement is short oval track racing, where the 40-150 f/2.8 PRO is more than enough. I have a 1.4 TC as well, to get to 420mm equivalent, but I've only used it at a circuit once, on a hot bright day, and the results were a bit soft, although that was probably as much due to my poor technique as it was the camera.

 

[snerkler]

Observations:

(1) it would appear from most peoples observations that weight is the main reason to change to Mirror-less. (accept that others have given some other reasons)
(2) If I want to stay full frame then the weight saving of 'the system' is negligible.
(3) I can't afford two digital systems and do not want to move away from full frame.
(4) Tried a Sony A7 & I don't like the EVF (it may take some getting used to). I hate the way it overlays exposure and other details on the image; prefer the OVF where all shutter speeds/ISO etc are on a separate LCD/LED readout. Plus I felt a bit of eyestrain which I think might be flicker induced.
(5) If I want small & light I will continue to take the film 35mm F3. (I prefer to shoot film most of the time anyway but sometimes you just 'fancy' digital for it's simplicity )
(6) Decision - although I love gadgets changing to mirror-less at this point would just be a very expensive purchase for no benefits at all to my photography, it would be just 'to have a new gadget' - I've no problem people changing for this reason but I can't justify it!

Thanks for everybody's time in replying to this - the reason i asked here and just didn't go to a shop is I am so gullible and a sales mans dream - I would have walked out with a camera I didn't really want.

1) That was certainly the idea when mirrorless first came out I believe, but as FF has become cheaper there appears (to me at least) to be more and more demand for FF. As such I think we need to move away from the notion of weight saving (on the whole) and look at the tech behind mirrorless. In my mind there's no doubt that mirrorless can take features and tech quite a way beyond what DSLRs can (Exp preview in the VF, zero blackout, higher shutter speeds, faster frame rates, eye AF, identical liveview performance, to name but a few). Now whether these are needed is debatable, for example does anyone need more than 12fps (seriously), does anyone need a shutter faster than 1/18000, especially with cameras like the D850 with a base ISO of 64? Zero blackout would be nice (although I imagine weird to get used to) and portrait shooters say AF is a "game changer" though.

2) Covered this above.

3)

4) You can change the way the EVF looks in the way of layout on some (if not all) cameras so that you can have it more like a DSLR. Until I tried the A7riii I would have agreed about flicker etc but at times I forgot I wasn't looking through OVF, it was that good. Shame my EM1 isn't like that

5) Always a great option

6) I'm with you, the benefits of mirrorless don't outweigh the cost to change. Plus, as yet I've not found a mirrorless that ticks all the boxes. For example, the A7riii I was very impressed with did have a few flaws. Whilst the EVF is truly amazing, there is a teeny tiny lag when panning (the sony rep was present when I was trying it and they changed all the settings to minimise this but it was still there,..... just). There's not enough room between the grip and lens for me, I kept catching my knuckles and based on this it would be impossible to use with gloves, not so good when you're up high on the Peak District in winter . Also, the balance with larger lenses wasn't great imo, even with grip. And of course, the cost of the lenses (I appreciate they're really no more expensive than the latest Canikon ones, but at present most Sony lenses are high end and don't have a big selection of mid range lenses.

I'm really interested to see what the new Nikon mirrorless brings to the table, but it really needs to have high end DSLR performance, lag-less EVF with at least the same quality as the A7riii, and good ergonomics. It's a big ask, especially for a first attempt.

 

[snerkler]

I guess the only way you really save size / weight with mirrorless is if you also drop sensor size, FF -v- m4/3 the differences become really pronounced when you start adding big lenses :-

View attachment 132831

Olympus EM1.2 with 300mm f/4 -v- Nikon D5 with 600mm f/4

I have the Olly EM1.2 and bought it specifically for motorsports (at which it excels, certainly as far as frame-rate + auto-focus is concerned), but most of my involvement is short oval track racing, where the 40-150 f/2.8 PRO is more than enough. I have a 1.4 TC as well, to get to 420mm equivalent, but I've only used it at a circuit once, on a hot bright day, and the results were a bit soft, although that was probably as much due to my poor technique as it was the camera.

Olympus certainly is a great weight saving, it's my go to option for a lightweight setup. However, whilst comparing lenses like this is our only real option it's not an ideal scenario. Due to the magnification needed for 'projected' m4/3 image to match the FF image 300mm on m4/3 isn't really a precise comparison to 600mm on FF. Obviously it is in terms of framing, but the FF image will always show more detail and sharpness. For a lot of viewing purposes this is probably irrelevant though

 

[mark.roper]

Due to the magnification needed for 'projected' m4/3 image to match the FF image 300mm on m4/3 isn't really a precise comparison to 600mm on FF. Obviously it is in terms of framing, but the FF image will always show more detail and sharpness.

I don't doubt, and I accepted that buying into m4/3 meant compromises, but I'm purely a hobbyist, and a Nikon 600 f/4, for example, is a £10k lens, whereas the Olly 300 f/4 is £2k, is the 600 f/4 £8k's worth of sharpness better? I'm pretty sure I'll never find out!

 

[snerkler]

I don't doubt, and I accepted that buying into m4/3 meant compromises, but I'm purely a hobbyist, and a Nikon 600 f/4, for example, is a £10k lens, whereas the Olly 300 f/4 is £2k, is the 600 f/4 £8k's worth of sharpness better? I'm pretty sure I'll never find out!

Think of all the money you'll save not having to pay to see the chiropractor due to carrying a 600mm f4 too

 

[gad-westy]

Olympus certainly is a great weight saving, it's my go to option for a lightweight setup. However, whilst comparing lenses like this is our only real option it's not an ideal scenario. Due to the magnification needed for 'projected' m4/3 image to match the FF image 300mm on m4/3 isn't really a precise comparison to 600mm on FF. Obviously it is in terms of framing, but the FF image will always show more detail and sharpness. For a lot of viewing purposes this is probably irrelevant though

It's interesting actually that if you stick a 300mm PF f/4 lens on the nikon, they end up quite a similar length and would give similar resolution using crop mode. I'd imagine the Olympus combo is a huge amount lighter though and far cheaper.

Quick edit to add. This might be being slightly unfair as 300mm PF lens is extraordinarily small for a full frame 300mm f/4 lens. Most would dwarf the Olympus.

 

[justpix]

Hi, Nikon appears to move in a different direction, giving reasons for not going mirrorless (with Nikon).

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com

Perhaps, their new bodies work better with Leica M mount UWA lenses than the SONY A7s ... ---

 

[justpix]

Hi, I have to correct myself. There are good reasons for the comparatively large Z mount:

https://photographylife.com/nikon-z-vs-nikon-f

 

[justpix]

Hi, I just spoke to novoflex, the German high-quality adaptor manufacturer. (I have a few of their adaptors.) They are planning to show prototypes for Leica M to Nikon Z at photokina ...

For those trying to build their own, maximally compact "FF" combo with Leica M mount glass, this might be interesting.

The adaptor will have to be roughly 2mm thicker, leading to more parallel rays hitting the sensor in the corners, resulting in better performance for WA and UWA lenses, hopefully.

Of course, this sounds like an exercise in advanced esoterics to most, but I adapt(ed) Leica M mount glass to the SONY A7 and the A7R2 - with mixed results.

The Nikon Zs could be better ---

 

[jerry12953]

TBH I dont give a monkeys arse whether what I have now equals what I could get from a full frame ,been down that road ,wrote the book wore the t.shirt etc. . all I know is that I can quiet happily go out in the winter onto the marshes and not have to schlep a huge backpack and tripod with me ,if I deem I'm gonna be in one spot for a while waiting on the owls I'll take either my c/f monopod or my c/f tripod and gimbal . will I get the same i.q who knows but it certainly looks that way from pics I have published so far . whether the light will be sufficient with that set up in winter remains to be seen ,but im sat here waiting on a 300 mm lens at the moment

I'm interested to hear your experience with the Olympus EM1 Mk2 for bird photography. I note that one of the winners in the Bird Photographer of the Year Competition (portfolio section) uses the EM1 Mk 2 so it must have a lot going for it.

 

[JJ!]

My 3 main reasons for looking in to mirrorless (A7iii) vs my current D750:

10 FPS vs 6.5 FPS
Ability to go small and light (35mm f2.8)
You can see changes in the EVF

 

[SFTPhotography]

AFAIK there is no reason to give up a nice camera for a silly little one.