The basic argument made in the article is that no one needs a DSLR camera with the current crop of mirrorless offerings. (We are still talking interchangeable lens systems here. No argument that you can just use a phone camera.)
Here's my responses to the arguments made in the articele.
1) Size Does Not Matter
The argument here is that you don't need a full-frame DSLR camera to take good pictures. That's true, but that is not the end of the argument on size.
Larger cameras can use larger sensors. Larger have advantages when compared to smaller sensors. The main advantage being less noise especially in low light conditions. Reducing the size of the individual photosites on the sensor and cramming them closer together increases the likelihood of noise.
There is a reason why the Sony a7S has a resolution of only 12 megapixels. It's to reduce noise at high ISO settings. And the a7S uses a full-frame sensor.
Try combining high ISO settings with a smaller sensor and low noise production. If it requires reducing resolution to 12 MP on a full frame sensor, what would the resolution be on a micro 4/3 sensor? (Granted, the a7S is designed for low-light video as well as photography. This probably results in additional limits on sensor design.)
Full-frame sensors allow for higher resolution without introducing unwanted noise. You can put a full-frame sensor in a mirrorless camera, but that elinimates many of the advantages gained from a mirrorless design.
Another factor when it comes to size is how the camera feels in the photographer's hands. I'm not a big guy and don't have exceptionally large hands but they're large enough that small cameras often feel uncomfortable to use. I can just imagine how someone with large hands would deal with a small camera.
In the end, size does matter.
2) You Can't Afford Not to Go Mirrorless
This one is just nonsense. Do a quick online search comparing DSLR cameras with mirrorless cameras and filter for sensor size.
The mirrorless bodies don't cost less and lens prices are based on complexity and size of the sensor. Removing the mirror does little to impact the price of equipment.
3) Because you need discretion and practicality
I'm not sure where the author is trying to go with this one. He talks about carrying around huge amounts of equipment when using a DSLR, including a tripod for landscapes. (And apparently not doing so with a mirrorless.)
So? That is just someone changing how they shoot.
Nothing says you have to lug a bunch of equipment around just because you use a DSLR. You can always limit the equipment you take along with you. Sounds like switching forced the author to self edit. You don't need to switch to a mirrorless to do that. You just need a little discipline.
And as to the tripod. I hope he's still using one with landscapes. That's the only way to ensure sharp images, even with a light camera.
You can be practical when using a DSLR.
4) You Don't Need a Mirror Anymore
The funny thing about this argument, early film cameras lacked a mirror. The addition of one was an improvement.
The mirror allowed the photographer to view the exact same image being projected on the film. The mirror in today's DSLR provides the same function.
Granted you can replace the mirror with an electronic view finder, which will project an image of what the sensor is seeing. The problem with this approach is that EVFs are often difficult to use in bright light. The image produced by the DSLR mirror does not suffer the same problem. (Plus, the EVF is going to increase the power consumption of the camera.)
The mirror also serves an additional function: it helps protect the sensor when changing lenses. Removing the mirror also removes this protection.
While you don't "need" a mirror in a camera, there are still valid reasons to include one in a camera.
5) Because the Quality is There
This is followed by two sentences, then a bunch of "freeing yourself to create" statements.
Well unless you are printing for the west face of K2 do you really need those 30+ megapixels? What you need is a camera system that inspires you to go and do better photography. A system that frees you up to create.
You need tools that are a pleasure to use, affordable and a little less intimidating. I am not even sure what resolution my mirrorless cameras are, It has not occurred to me because I am so happy with the output that it’s not a worry.
Then there is the party trick of the mirrorless, the EVF (electronic view finder). Oh what a joy it is to spot meter and lock exposure live in camera and see your image just as it will be before hitting the shutter. It’s a dream and the tonal range you can achieve by metering live with EVF in this way can be sublime with practice.
I'm glad the author gets such pleasure from taking pictures using an EVF.
Frankly, I don't rely on my camera to inspire me to take pictures or to want to improve my photography skills.
I'm inspired by the world around me.
I'm inspired by the objects I see.
I'm inspired by the images taken by other photographers.
I'm inspired by looking at the images I have taken and determining how I could make them better.
I have never really been inspired by my camera. My camera is the tool I use because I have been inspired.
Right now my camera is an inexpensive bridge camera. I would love a better camera, but not having one is not going to prevent me from taking pictures.
I just had to comment on your blog in support of your response to that ridiculous "click-bait" headline on the ever declining DIY Photography.net.
ReplyDeleteHere's my response to your responses.
1. I agree with all that you said up to the physical comfort of the camera in a person's hands. My hands are paralyzed and I cannot successfully use a smaller camera. I need a larger body and larger lenses to efficiently make photos. Even small primes like my 50 mm sometimes give me problems because of the reduced surface area to hold onto.
Finally, one of the biggest factors that you missed was image appearance. I'm not talking about noise or even dynamic range but about depth of field. You cannot get that shallow look without a larger sensor. Yes, it was argued that larger sensors are in smaller bodies, but in general the larger sensors are still in the larger bodies. Faster glass can help to make up for this in smaller cameras but I still think that they are a ways off of a thoroughly developed DSLR system. Faster glass still adds up the difficulties of the simple physical properties of light with apertures that large even on smaller sensors.
2. Agreed!
3. I don't know where the author is trying to go with this one, either. I know that traveling light can be a huge benefit but I am committed to making the best photos I am capable of making and that is simply a matter of hauling a few extra things that give me confidence in my ability to complete the shoot properly. Some of the photographers I respect most limit themselves almost exclusively to a reflector and scrim and that's just fine with me. It's simply their style of shooting. I feel I make better photos with all the equipment at my disposal and that's how I choose to travel whether the body and lenses are big or not. The gear I use that takes up the most space and weight is my lighting equipment, not my camera and lenses and that's with a full-size DSLR and professional zooms.
4. My first thought was the power gobbling of an EVF. I believe that most of them are now becoming bright enough that sunlight is less of an issue but that still doesn't take away the battery drain. Granted, having the mirror out of the way does make sensor cleaning ever so slightly easier but I would take the protection over the easy sensor cleaning, any day.
5. I'm also glad that he gets such pleasure from making photos using the EVF. I just feel sorry for him that he does not understand his exposure and lighting well enough to see the picture in his mind based on his chosen settings before he makes the exposure. Regarding freeing me to create, having the right tools at my disposal frees me to create. There is nothing wrong with occasionally limiting your equipment to force yourself to try something new. But a good chef, a good carpenter, a good mechanic, has the right tools for the right job and knows that almost any time you compromise you either damage the tool or don't get the exact results you wanted. If you do get the results you wanted, it probably took you far longer than it would have with the proper tools.
Thanks for your writing your response and for commenting on the article. I've appreciated coming from an entry-level DSLR and moving up to what I have now, with a new D810 on its way. I don't take that for granted just like I don't take my lenses or my lighting equipment for granted. I feel that I face enough challenges and struggles living with a disability and I'm glad that my photographic struggles to create the image I see in my mind are reduced because of my available tools.