Tag Archives: compare

Commentary, Equipment

What Is Appealing About Mirrorless?

Leave a comment

Earlier today I read a comment by someone who understands the appeal of small, cropped-sensor mirrorless cameras but wondered,  “What’s the charm that gets people excited about FF mirrorless?” The writer pointed out that size/weight advantages of mirrorless are diminished in full-frame mirrorless cameras, where one would likely use larger lenses, and that the electronic viewfinder (EVF) displays and shorter battery life seem like disadvantages by comparison to full frame DSLRs.

The answers to somewhat complex and subjective. I provided a rather short answer to the question in the original venue… but only after writing and deleting a longer reply (too long for that forum) that now forms the basis of what follows.

You are right to note that mirrorless (and DSLR) systems both have pluses and minuses. Reading what some write about this subject, you might start to think that the distinctions are black and white, where A is always better — unless the writer prefers B, in which B is always better in every way.

It is actually more nuanced than that, and we are in a period of transition where mirrorless systems are changing faster than DSLR systems — meaning that the former may not yet be up to speed in some areas for some users, but that they are rapidly becoming more competent and may be the better choice for more photographers than in the past.

(I use both mirrorless and DSLR systems. In some cases I prefer my mirrorless system. In other cases I prefer my DSLR. Other photographers I know feel differently. For example, I prefer my mirrorless system for street photography, but I often find myself with folks using small DSLRs. I’ve stood side-by-side with photographers using mirrorless cameras to photograph birds in flight while I used a DSLR.)

Part of the answer involves how the mirrorless cameras became popular, and part of it relates to the features and characteristics of the two options. Continue reading What Is Appealing About Mirrorless? →

Commentary

Fujifilm GFX and Canon 5DsR part II

2 Comments

Earlier I shared the beginning of an article that compares the Fujifilm GFX 50S and the Canon 5DsR, two cameras with different formats but approximately the same sensor resolution. That article (“Fujifilm GFX and Canon 5DsR” wasn’t complete … and now I’m back with one more point of reference.

When it comes to resolution, making judgments based on screen images has its limits. For example, 100% magnification crops “show” you things that won’t be visible even in  a very large print, and in many cases you must interpret what you see in the screen image in order to speculate about what the print will look like. As we say, “The proof is in the print.”

With that in mind, I have prepared some files that may be useful for comparing print resolution from Fujifilm GFX 50S and the Canon 5DsR. These files each hold three “test strips” labeled A, B, and C. The files have been formatted for producing prints with a print area of 10″ wide and 6″ tall (use letter-size paper) when printed at a resolution of 360. They are sRGB color files in the highest quality (Photoshop: 12) jpg format.

There are four files. Let’s call them:

(Click on the links to see and download the files.)

IMPORTANT NOTE: When first posted, these links went to downsized files rather than the full size print-ready files. This was corrected on 1/21/18. The print areas of these files should be 3600 pixels on the long side, for printing 10″ long at 360 ppi.

Viewing them on screen is not the object here — in fact, for reasons I won’t go into here, trying to evaluate that way is of very limited value and may mislead you. (For example, the files have been optimized for print in ways that may make them look poor on screen at 100% magnification.)

You will need to print.

Since there are four samples, you’ll need to make four letter-size prints. The correct settings will probably be entered automatically, but check that the print area is 10″ wide and 6″ tall and that the resolution is set to 360.  As you download and print the files you may wish to make a note on each (in pencil or ink) indicating which file it is — sample 1, sample 2, sample 3, and sample 4.

Observe each print carefully. Note anything you can see related to the resolution of each printed strip A, B, and C. (Note that this is only a resolution test — don’t worry about things like image size, brightness, color, and so forth.)

In order to avoid confirmation bias I’m not going to reveal anything else about the files at this time. Once a few people (or a lot of people?) have weighed in with their observations — please use the comments below — I’ll reveal more important information about what you are looking at.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn | Email

All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Equipment

Mini Medium Format… or Not?

5 Comments

A photographer and friend asked me for my thoughts on mini medium format, or “miniMF,” camera systems. I told her the answer was complex and that I’d write it up at the blog. Here it is!

I have attempted to include several things in the article: a bit of background regarding formats, some objective facts (“the numbers”) about them and their relationships, pluses and minuses of various options, my own current subjective thoughts on what this means to me, and a few alternative perspectives.

The evolution of digital medium format cameras has been among the most interesting photographic developments over the past few years. High MP backs from companies like Phase One and Leaf became the high-end standard for digital image making, and other companies have recently entered the market. The larger sensors may provide improved image quality in several ways: greater system resolution, greater pixel resolution, improved dynamic range, less noise, and more.

It wasn’t that long ago that digital formats larger than full frame were out of reach for nearly all photographers, with costs that were frequently many tens of thousands of dollars, often for only the digital back, which had to be attached to a medium format body.

However, in the last few years several manufacturers have driven down the cost of camera systems using larger-than-full-frame sensors, and now digital “medium format” (more on that term in a moment) bodies are available for less than $7000. A range of manufacturers are now in this market, including Fujifilm, Pentax, and Hasselblad.

When the costs of larger sensor bodies were in the mid-$20k and up (sometimes very up) range, few photographers using full frame DSLR or mirrorless cameras could realistically consider them as options. But the current $6500-$9000 price isn’t that much higher than the most expensive full frame bodies. At these prices the potential improvements in image quality are enough to make folks take a closer look, especially if they are photographers who produce large and high quality prints on a regular basis.

I began to pay attention when the miniMF Pentax 645d came out some years ago (though I was a bit disappointed to find out that the sensor wasn’t really “645” size), and my interest only increased as Pentax updated to the 645z and then as Fujifilm and Hasselblad brought out competing products. I thought a lot about the possible value of such systems for my photography, and I considered getting one. I haven’t done ao — though I won’t rule it out in the future — but I would like to share some of my musings about the choices. Continue reading Mini Medium Format… or Not? →

Deals and Sales, Equipment, Reader Questions

Reader Question: Sony Versus Fujifilm

Leave a comment

6/28/16: Slightly updated on 6/28/16 to reflect my acquisition of the Fujifilm X-Pro2  (B&H | Adorama) and a few other things.

Today I am sharing  another reader question and my response. This one came from “Greg” in a response to a post on my Facebook page:

Hi Dan, have heard good things about the Fuji cameras. Have also heard good things about the SONY cameras. Both are mirrorless, but the SONY is a full-frame while the Fuji is APC/1.5X. Is there a reason you would choose the Fuji over the SONY – you indicated in the article you have been using the  X-Pro1 and will be moving up to the  X-Pro2… Illuminate me on the subject

That is a great subject to consider, Greg. Both Sony and Fujifilm are making some very fine mirrorless cameras these days, but for my purposes the Fujifilm is a better fit than, say, the Sony a7R II full frame mirrorless camera that Greg is thinking of. (Small correction: I have not been using the X-Pro1. I have used the X-E1 for the past three years and I now use the X-Pro2.)

Before I explain, I must acknowledge that the Sony is an excellent body, and another photographer may well find it to be the best choice for his/her needs. The Sony a7R II is, as you point out, a full frame body and the current version has a 42MP sensor rather than a 24MP sensor. The sensor is known for its low noise and excellent dynamic range. Sony has some native lenses, but lots of folks are using their Sony cameras with a range of third party lenses, including those from their Canon and (now) Nikon DSLRs.

So, with all of those positives, why Fujifilm? Continue reading Reader Question: Sony Versus Fujifilm →