So I did more research and reading. I agree that mirrorless is the future. But for wildlife photography, the recommendation is still to go with a DSLR. I'm debating between Olympus OM-D EM-5 which is a mirrorless that comes highly recommended and Canon EOS 7D now. No more full frame thoughts now. My pictures are going to be mainly wildlife and aviation. The Canon mirrorless I have, will remain the casual camera, I guess.
Thoughts? On May 3, 2015 10:01 AM, "Tim Bray" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) >
