dSLR users: open up to mirror-less models

Over a year ago, I couldn't really see myself using a mirror-less camera model.  I have been good with a dSLR, and I didn't feel any need to switch.  The various new system cameras didn't offer me anything great, until the GH3.

Now, it's easy to see that the Panasonic GH3 is the size of a smaller dSLR, but with a well-proportioned body and good grip.  The designers actually thought about its being used by photographers.  Isn't that amazing?

Add to that reasonable still photography and incredible video photography at a reasonable price with weather-sealing, and you've got a recipe for taking on a hurricane.  I know--I've been out in hurricanes, photographing them with the Olympus E-1.

I was stubborn that an electronic viewfinder could not work for me and I wasn't going to use the rear display because of the trouble using it in bright sunlight.  I was half right.

Using a rear display doesn't work well in bright sunlight, but the smaller EVF can, especially those of the Olympus E-M1 and FujiFilm X-T1.  I haven't seen the Panasonic GH4's improved EVF but I expect it to be good, not great.  I have various issues when using the GH3 viewfinder, mainly with sunglasses, but it is relatively good.  I've used the Olympus E-M1 extensively and found that it doesn't seem to have the GH3's problems, and since many people have commented that the FujiFilm X-T1's viewfinder is even better than that of the E-M1, I would say that my short experience with the X-T1 would be very positive and typical also.

Where the EVF shines on the GH3 is at night.  I can see to frame and focus in ways that an optical viewfinder does not work well.  I had great respect for the Olympus OM-1N viewfinder--the brightest in the business at the time, but the GH3 does miracles for night work, and I'm guessing that any EVF can work similarly well.

Along with that, the GH3's auto focus works to EV -4.  That's equivalent to starlight.  I took some quick photos after the firmware update, just to see, and it worked incredibly well.  I hated the image quality, as I wasn't really trying to do anything important and didn't plan, but it worked.

The one thing I dislike with the Olympus E-5 and Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D users will understand: switching to Live View takes a fast camera body and makes it seem horribly slow.  There were occasions when I flipped out the display (don't try that with the D7100 or 70D!) and enabled Live View and it felt as though time stopped.  I got the photos I wanted, and it's so nice to be able to point the lens upward, while looking at a comfortable angle, but you have to be a bit patient.

The GH3 allows me to switch back and forth quickly because the same feed and the same auto focus is working.  Since there is no optical viewfinder, the imaging sensor is working in Live View mode all the time, and it's made to handle the thermal stresses, as well.  Need to hand-hold a Live View shot at a steep angle in portrait orientation?  The GH3's rear display can do that for you, and you will still be comfortable.

There was a time when I would be flat on my back, looking up at a building, working to get a certain vertical shot.  I no longer have to do that.

I was taking some photos last Saturday at an arboretum and park and it was simple to get each shot.  I thought that the rear display would be unusable, but I could actually see it fairly well.  Someone asked me to take a photo or two with their smart phone, and I was surprised at how poor the Samsung Galaxy S4 display did in bright light.  I could barely see where the shutter release button was.  Considering that Samsung uses their phones to showcase their displays, it was disappointing.  I had new respect for Panasonic.

I know, better than most, what speed means.  After all, I photograph a lot of sports.  I can understand why photographers have switched to video for cross country and track events but I have not.  I'm still sorting things to use the GH3 in such sports, although replacing it with the GH4 will likely help, and that's on the list.  I don't do a lot of burst mode shooting, but 12 frames per second sounds better than 6 frames per second when it comes to crunch time, don't you think?  Of course, auto focus had better work well also, or you'd better be able to manually focus the lens quickly.  (I'm good with manual focus on dSLR lenses because they're big enough for that to happen.  micro Four-Thirds lenses are tiny, in comparison, so I require auto focus to work well.)

The only thing you can't fix with mirror-less equipment is the price.  I pick and choose but on the whole, everything that will get you high image quality is really expensive.  Mind you, it's often cheaper than equivalent dSLR equipment, especially weather-sealed equipment, but most people don't see that.  Once again, photographing hurricanes, the weather-sealed equipment worked beautifully, and every time I shoot cross country in the rain, I giggle at the people trying to hide their equipment from the downpour.

I know that dSLRs will go away eventually.  I'm sure everyone realizes that.  I was stubborn and didn't want to let go but suddenly, with the right lens, I'm realizing the benefits of mirror-less technology.

Canon's greatest tool against mirror-less cameras is misdirection

Canon is sucking wind right now.  They're in trouble from all sides and they know it.

Nikon rose from its coma years ago with the D300 and they haven't stopped.  Panasonic and Olympus have revived themselves through micro Four-Thirds, and Sony is finding a way through its name and the fixed semi-translucent mirror technology.

Canon's 6D is not really a match for Nikon's D600, but it's good for the Canon fanatic who has been thinking all this time that they needed a 135 format frame (full frame, inaccurate as it is as there are many full frame formats) camera body.  Nikon's advantage is DX mode, where you can use lenses specifically made for their smaller sensor camera bodies.  There is a change in the resolution, but it's sufficient, especially compared to not being able to use any lenses.  There seem to be other economizing tasks Canon has done to bring the 6D to its price point, and a lot of people will have to consider them thoroughly before buying.

Canon's EOS-M is a great attempt at a mirror-less camera body.  They should ask Sony how non-Sony users like their lack of lenses.  Of course, Canon has less to offer since they just started, but Sony has been at it almost as long as Panasonic and Olympus, with little to show in their lens selection.

Canon's new miniature dSLR  (100D/Rebel SL1) may keep some die-hard fanatics from leaving for mirror-less, but there have been plenty already who say the future in light and small equipment and jumped to micro Four-Thirds bodies.  Now that there is a good sensor in the Panasonic GH3 and Olympus E-M5, it makes it more difficult to claim a huge advantage for APS-C.  As with Pentax's recently-discontinued K-01 mirror-less camera, the bigger sensor requires bigger lenses.  If you have many lenses, the lightweight, small body might not be much of an advantage, if you can't find room for it in your bag.  Thinking further, given that it's about the size of the Olympus E-4x0 series and the Nikon D40, I wonder if it suffers from a small and dark viewfinder.  That put me off from keeping an E-4x0 series body with me when it could have been helpful.

Canon's 5DMkIII isn't even safe, due to Panasonic's GH3 and its video capabilities.  Besides that, Panasonic seems to be producing lens after lens directly targeting Canon's most popular.  The lenses aren't made of as much metal, so they probably aren't as durable, but when you're talking about being able to put them almost anywhere, light weight and a low price may put them in more places than you'd expect.  Panasonic is no stranger to professional video and having quite a few of Zeiss' compact prime lens range (professionally-priced) will make it easier for a small production company to use more portable gear and produce exquisite results.

We have yet to see a Canon 70D but the Nikon D7100 is out and it's quite capable with many components of the D300 inside the compact body derived from the D7000.

Like Microsoft is with operating systems, Canon isn't going away, but they could be minimized in just a few years if they can't recover now.  Unfortunately, they will probably have to lose money to keep their user base.  If they lose their fanatics, they may be in huge trouble.  When fanatics feel betrayed, they will pounce.

I wonder if we'll ever reach a point of a level-playing field, similar to that of the 1970s.  We've certainly turned a corner on pixel density and the need for huge numbers of pixels has gone, except for the high end professional.  It could be an interesting 5-10 years for Canon.  All they can truly do now is advertise to distract from the 800 pound elephant in the room.

Update 2014.11.14: They threw the EOS M against the wall and it didn't still until they reduced the price from US$800 to US$300.  They replaced it already but haven't sent it out of Japan.

For that matter, they only recently replaced the 7D model with a 7D Mk II.  Anything under US$3000 doesn't seem to matter much to them anyway.  They have to sell loads of accessories for those inexpensive models to make significant money on them.

They know that they need to fix things.  They've been flailing with their dSLRs that sell under US$3000.  Panasonic has been attacking the 5D Mk III quite well with the GH3 and the GH4.  Even if the still photographic component isn't nearly as good, the video is quite amazing.

All of the mirror-less entries have arrived for now

Now that Canon has introduced their mirror-less camera system, we have entries from each major brand:

Canon are the newest with their EOS-M.

Pentax have their K-01 and Q-system bodies; one huge, one tiny.

Nikon have a small format with the distinction of phase detection auto focus.

Samsung have had multiple models but not much success.

Sony have had multiple models and some success but lack good lenses, or many lenses of any quality.

Panasonic and Olympus originated the idea and have a diverse selection with some excellent fixed focal length lenses, but they're struggling with size and weight to bring excellent zoom lenses to the market.

Comparing them casually

To me, Canon's entry is only adequate.  They're coming to market with a mediocre set of specifications and features.  The image quality is quite nice, but they waited so long that you're paying a premium price for performance that's already been done.

Pentax have the most bizarre ideas for mirror-less cameras.  The K-01 is about the same size as their dSLRs and mounts the same lenses, but it also has all the disadvantages of mirror-less cameras with slow operation, and of course, the most unusual designer design.  The Q-system isn't really winning any friends.  It's small but it's not cute.  They could have designed it to match the old Auto 110 SLR (they had a point-and-shoot like that) and it would give people a fond memory on which to purchase the system.  Instead, they gave it a blocky design that looks uncomfortable to hold and use.  Supposedly, it doesn't work all that well, either.

Nikon have done well in selling their 1-system.  I suspect it's mostly their dSLR customers buying into the system but it's small and pocketable and cute.  They're on their second generation, and it's not as bad as it might seem from the specification.

What happened with Samsung?  They couldn't get along with Pentax?  They had worked together as Samsung got into the dSLR field but they just couldn't find common ground?  It seems as though they copied Sony style and specifications (and name, NX vs. NEX?), but came up with something almost no one really wanted.  I've been told that their dSLRs were better than the Pentax branded dSLRs from which they were originated, so why couldn't they work with Pentax so both companies would avoid embarrassment?

Sony keeps coming up with clever bodies to match their electronics focus.  Unfortunately, they made most of the bodies so compact that you need proprietary accessories.  Besides that, the lenses required by the image circle or the APS-C sized sensor have to be rather big and appear huge on the smallest bodies.  Image quality is generally good, but the compromises are high for what they're asking of the user, especially since they have few good lenses and no spectacular lenses.

I'm more inclined to believe in Panasonic and Olympus since I'm a Four-Thirds user, having two high end Olympus dSLR bodies.  They have a number of fixed focal length (prime) lenses that are quite great.  I keep reading that they're even better than those on 135 format camera bodies.  It wouldn't surprise me since Olympus has a history of great lenses.  The zoom lenses are the problem.  Both companies have chosen small and light over excellent image quality.  Panasonic often corrects lens problems in the camera's firmware and Olympus has begun to do this also.  This still doesn't excuse poor designs but for hobbyists, does it matter?  I see a lot who want a US$5000 lens for US$100 but I suppose that's always the case.  What's sadly humorous is that I cannot nitpick the others like this--they don't have the products to nitpick.  The micro Four-Thirds image quality has improved so much that many reviews of the Olympus E-M5 suggest that you need to move to 135 format (full frame, as they mistakenly call it) to see an appreciable difference.

In 10 years, will there even be a dSLR market?

ILC, EVIL, CSC, and MSC and DSLM--mirror-less acronyms

Seriously, these name games are ridiculous.

• ILC -- Interchangeable Lens Camera, which describes everything from SLRs to Rangefinders to mirror-less cameras.
• MILC -- Obviously, an extension to ILC with Mirror-less out front.
• EVIL -- Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens is more precise but technically includes Sony's SLT line of translucent mirrored cameras, as well as mirror-less cameras.
• CSC -- Compact System Camera could mean just about anything, including point-and-shoot cameras with a large number of accessories and snap-on lenses.
• MSC -- Mirror-less System Camera to me, defines the category the best, but leaves the interchangeable lenses to the imagination.  Obviously, it could include point-and-shoot cameras, but I believe it is closer to a narrow definition.  Alternatively, MILSC and MSILC are getting a bit long, and I get to feeling like singing "M-O-U-S-E" after saying or spelling it.
• DSLM -- Digital Single Lens Mirrorless.  Added by Panasonic with the arrrival of the GH3.  It's very clear what it is, but then, they used it with the rangefinder style GX7, so it might not make as much sense.

In any case, I think it's going to be a while before the category has a definitive name or goal.

I'm still interested in how Olympus' E-M5 stacks up against Panasonic's DMC-GH2.  I think it's apparent that Olympus has been doing quite well with still images, as Panasonic has been doing with moving images.  The GH2 is in need of a few upgrades and a weatherproof body, and they're supposedly on the way, but haven't moved to manufacturing yet.  By the time the GH3 is out, the E-M5 will probably be feeling old.

Of course, Panasonic's G3 and GX1 have been out a while, as have Olympus E-P3, E-PL3, and E-PM1.  So, only the models numbered 5 are truly fresh, although the GX1 hasn't be around all that long.

I feel a bit sorry for Samsung and Sony.  They keep throwing money at the situation, but they're not really making a lot of positive progress.  Nikon are probably selling their 1 series pretty well, despite its shortcomings, simply because you can fit it into a purse easily.  Why have a compact camera, if it's not really compact?  Nikon put their money into the 4x6 print crowd.  It's a bit too much to say but Pentax's tiny Q-system can barely manage a 4x6.  It's not that small or that bad, but it is at a disadvantage and their K-01 is the odd man out being the size of a dSLR but allowing their large collection of lenses.  You might as well carry their K-r compact dSLR.

Seeing as how Canon punted with their PowerShot G-series and Nikon brought out the D3200 with 24MP, you have to wonder if these mirror-less system cameras will continue to invade the top 10 lists around the world.

Update 2014.01.09: They've all made progress but the terms are used without much thought.  Mirror-less cameras have come a long way and even Canon is on their second generation body finally.  micro Four-Thirds (Panasonic, Olympus and now JK Imaging/Kodak) and FujiFilm seem to have the lead.