Why mirrorless cameras?

[Ian_Haines]

What are the benefits of a camera that is mirrorless?

[Graham]

There are a lot of answers to this.

1. They are physically smaller, because you don’t have a light-path involving a mirror and a prism.

2. You look at a display as opposed to viewing through the lens, which leads to accurate preview before shooting. You have focus peaking, which enables to determine depth of field, better and more precise focussing and have a live histogram.

3. Silent shooting mode, as there are no moving parts within the camera.

4. Superior and faster autofocus, with thousands of focus points.

5. Makes use of up to date technology, as some DLSR’s are based on 30 year old tech.

Cons

1. Shortened battery life
2. Expensive
3. Lenses can cost more than the actual camera body.

[Ian_Haines]

Thanks, for that, Graham. I’d guess that maybe they also have image stabilisation?

[Ian_Haines]

I got this when I clicked here, just now…what does it mean?

[d00d]

@Ian_Haines

I got this when I clicked here, just now…what does it mean?

I think Azz has changed the title from “Why Mirrorless” to “Why mirrorless cameras”, which is not a bad idea.

[realspeed]

If a mirrorless camera has built in stablisation and the lens also has image stablisation, what I wonder does one cancel out the other

[d00d]

You’ve summed it up nicely Graham.

But just to emphasise …

@Graham

Silent shooting mode, as there are no moving parts within the camera.

Silent shooting, being the choice of Electronic Shutter over Mechanical Shutter, of course. Electronic can give you twice the frame rate. However, I’m not sure when such high frame rates are needed in still photography.

[Graham]

@d00d

However, I’m not sure when such high frame rates are needed in still photography.

If your taking a picture of something fast moving, too quick to judge the precise moment to release the shutter, then a burst of (example) a dozen or so pics over a fraction of a second may yield the one image you’re after.

Imagine wanting to take a pic of a diving Kingfisher and wanted that one shot where it just touches the water. You would be hard pressed - or very lucky - to get that exact image as the bird travels incredibly fast. A burst mode will at least give you a greater chance of that one image as opposed to trying to manually judge it. This type of photography is in high demand and I see a lot of people use it for this purpose. But the burst mode spec is down to speed of camera, mem card and it’s capacity.

[Ian_Haines]

Oh, yes…good idea! Thanks, for the reply, and thanks, Azz!

[d00d]

@Graham

@d00d

However, I’m not sure when such high frame rates are needed in still photography.

If your taking a picture of something fast moving, too quick to judge the precise moment to release the shutter, then a burst of (example) a dozen or so pics over a fraction of a second may yield the one image you’re after.

Imagine wanting to take a pic of a diving Kingfisher and wanted that one shot where it just touches the water. You would be hard pressed - or very lucky - to get that exact image as the bird travels incredibly fast. A burst mode will at least give you a greater chance of that one image as opposed to trying to manually judge it. This type of photography is in high demand and I see a lot of people use it for this purpose. But the burst mode spec is down to speed of camera, mem card and it’s capacity.

Interesting subject. I use burst mode more & more nowadays, set to 6 fps for about half a second. My modest little Panasonic will shoot up to 40 fps on electronic shutter I believe.

Then there’s video mode, and taking a single frame for a usable still shot. I’ve never tried it, but I don’t do wildlife.