And I partially agree with Ashwin, except for the phrase “full-frame”. I think that the current state of the art, things like the range of lenses available and - especially - the ergonomics, are a much bigger deal than the number of pixels or square mm. The ergonomics of the main mirrorless lines - Olympus, Fujifilm, Sony - are wildly different, and reflect very different ways of thinking about taking pictures.
Did I mention it’s the golden age of photography? On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Ashwin Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Tim. Venkat, do try the mirrorless full frame cameras one > more time. I have a Sony A7 and been very happy with it. In fact, I have > completely given up on my film cameras. > I use 35mm and 90mm fixed lenses, but I have shot it with longer lenses > and it was very good both ergonomically and IQ wise. > ~ashwin > +919483466818 > > > > > On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:40 PM -0700, "Tim Bray" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hm. It’s quite likely wrong to conclude from your experience that > mirrorlesses are slow in general. Lots of people who've been using SLRs for > years have been going the other way recently, drawn by the charms of > mirrorless size and ergonomics. I think you'd find the recent offerings > from Olympus, Panasonic, and Fujifilm probably would please you. > Some people like the recent Sonys but I found the one I tried to be > ergonomically painful, and they have HUGE sensors which means you wait > forever while downloading and processing them. On the other hand, if you > want to make 1 meter x 3 meter prints… Having said that, you can get a > little more for your money in SLR-land, particularly in used-SLR land. > > Your question is a little unusual because many photographers, including > some with very high visibility, have in the last couple of years switched > from SLR to mirrorless. I don’t have high visibility but I did too > (Fujifilm in my case) and can’t imagine going back. > > > On May 1, 2015 7:36 PM, "Tim Bray" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Why would you want a larger, heavier camera that won't actually take > better > > pictures? > > Actually I found that the mirrorless was quite slow. During my recent trip, > the camera and the rented lens (prime lens at that) was too slow. > Besides, the buffer was not able to match the speed of the wildlife and > birds that I typically try to capture. It was pretty frustrating. The > mirrorless is good for relatively slower subjects and casual photos. > > -V > -- - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray)
