Bridge v mirrorless

richardw

Trade Member
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
10,571
Location
On the banks of the Derbyshire Wye
Thank God for that. Was begining to feel like Jeremy Paxman with Michael Howard.. thought I was gonna have to ask the question 12 times :rolleyes:
Like Paxman, and the viewing public, we all knew the answer.

Yes, it does negate your observations, and generally, as usual, makes you look a fool.

You espouse, almost evengelically, the virtues of the mirrorless system, yet you have never used it. You denigrate, and talk disparagingly of DSLR's yet you own, and use one.

Yes I was expecting that. Quite pathetically predictable of you. If I'd said I use a mirrorless camera, you would have said that I was suggesting Mike considered them because I had one and when I say I use a DSLR you come out with the claptrap quoted above...

Now let's just look at your claptrap nonsense in a little detail as the conclusion jump detector is turning bright red now.

Your assumption is wrong. I never said I haven't used a mirrorless camera.

Neither have I said anything disparagingly about DSLRs. Pointing out that mirrorless cameras are not actually as bad as some folks are saying and in some cases have certain advantages over DSLRs is not actually denigrating DSLRs, is it? The fact I have a DSLR (in fact have had several) and use it when appropriate, surely qualifies me to say to someone with no current investment in equipment to consider all his options.

richard

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------

The OP's post mentions 'bridge', so I'll chuck my hat in.

I've spent all of this year looking at the options, borrowing cameras, literally weighing it up, and I've recently settled on a compromise that works for me.

A three year old model superzoom bridge that will capture RAW, has a shitty viewfinder, 1cm macro, HDfilth, all for about £100 delivered.

Pretty much has the same functions of an SLR, sure the quality won't compare with an enormous black monstrosity, but is a 'disposable' learning tool that suits my tiny hands.



Credit to Rob for the style cues. :whistle:


P1020388.jpg







P1020036-001.jpg

Splendid work and a sensible first step too.

richard
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
28,773
Location
Embra
Mike/

Not really discussed the bridge option, what with all the SLR vs mirrorless nonsense. It's entirely up to yourself if you want to consider a bridge camera. If you do, I would strongly suggest that for a fisherman, the sort of one to look at is an advanced compact - something that you can still get in your waistcoat pocket. A lot of folk make the evolution from point and shoot, to bridge, to SLR over a few years. So, it depends on whether you want to go that route, or leap-frog the bridge, straight to SLR. I would say that if you are considering it, do it, you won't regret it. :thumbs:

I have been looking into this mirrorless thing, and a lot depends on whether you reckon you will want to shoot at telephoto distances. I have only looked at the Canon EOS M as I don't have time to look beyond my own comfort zone, and that consists of Canon gear. First and foremost it is a compact camera, and a compact should fit in your pocket. But if you put a lens any larger than a small one on it, it won't fit in your pocket. So, what is the point of it? The EOS M comes with either a 22 mm f2 prime, or a 18-55 mm f3.5-5.6 zoom lens. Canon have not said if there will be any more EOS M lenses. Even with the 18-55 on it, it's an awkward shape for a pocket :confused:

The UK rrp for the EOS M with the 18-55 mm is £769.99. The UK rrp for an 1100D with 18-55mm is £489 and I've found it for £289.

If you want to 'go long' with your shots, you will need something telephoto. Here is what the EOS M looks like with one of Canon's flagship pieces of glass (70-200mm f2.8) attached to it (and it's an official Canon release image)...

canon_EOS-M_with_70-200mm.jpg


Now, that is not going to fit in anyone's pocket. Admittedly, your 70-300mm kit lens that you were considering with the 1100D kit is nothing like as big, but it illustrates the issue... will you be mostly shooting street scenes like Henri Cartier Bresson with your camera tucked into the back of your hand, or will you be out in the countryside, shooting action and nature?

Your answers to the above might guide you in your choice...

Col
 

richardw

Trade Member
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
10,571
Location
On the banks of the Derbyshire Wye
Mike/

Not really discussed the bridge option, what with all the SLR vs mirrorless nonsense. It's entirely up to yourself if you want to consider a bridge camera. If you do, I would strongly suggest that for a fisherman, the sort of one to look at is an advanced compact - something that you can still get in your waistcoat pocket. A lot of folk make the evolution from point and shoot, to bridge, to SLR over a few years. So, it depends on whether you want to go that route, or leap-frog the bridge, straight to SLR. I would say that if you are considering it, do it, you won't regret it. :thumbs:

I have been looking into this mirrorless thing, and a lot depends on whether you reckon you will want to shoot at telephoto distances. I have only looked at the Canon EOS M as I don't have time to look beyond my own comfort zone, and that consists of Canon gear. First and foremost it is a compact camera, and a compact should fit in your pocket. But if you put a lens any larger than a small one on it, it won't fit in your pocket. So, what is the point of it? The EOS M comes with either a 22 mm f2 prime, or a 18-55 mm f3.5-5.6 zoom lens. Canon have not said if there will be any more EOS M lenses. Even with the 18-55 on it, it's an awkward shape for a pocket :confused:

The UK rrp for the EOS M with the 18-55 mm is £769.99. The UK rrp for an 1100D with 18-55mm is £489 and I've found it for £289.

If you want to 'go long' with your shots, you will need something telephoto. Here is what the EOS M looks like with one of Canon's flagship pieces of glass (70-200mm f2.8) attached to it (and it's an official Canon release image)...

canon_EOS-M_with_70-200mm.jpg


Now, that is not going to fit in anyone's pocket. Admittedly, your 70-300mm kit lens that you were considering with the 1100D kit is nothing like as big, but it illustrates the issue... will you be mostly shooting street scenes like Henri Cartier Bresson with your camera tucked into the back of your hand, or will you be out in the countryside, shooting action and nature?

Your answers to the above might guide you in your choice...

Col

Being able to put the camera in your pocket precludes DSLRs from the reckoning. I must have missed where Mike specified that the camera needs to go in a pocket...:rolleyes:

That set up in your picture would be more practical if it had a built-in eye level viewfinder. It's only half a job at the moment.

Anyway I believe Mike has decided against mirrorless on the grounds of initial cost, which is fair enough.

richard
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
28,773
Location
Embra
I must have missed where Mike specified that the camera needs to go in a pocket...

Mike didn't say it had to go in your pocket. I was trying to find the advantages that a mirrorless compact might have over an SLR. The only one I have found so far is that with a pancake lens on it, you might get it in your pocket. If you try to use it with any of the myriad established lenses, you are not going to get it in your pocket. So, that's out. Am I missing something here? They just seem to be utterly pointless unless you can make a compact out of them :confused:
 

mike j thomas

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
618
Location
Gosport Hampshire
Okay guys, firstly, Thank you all very much for the replies and the feedback!
I am probably going to go with a Canon EOS 600D with a 15 to 135mm lens, I can pick one up brand new for just over $1000NZ, that is around 500 quid. I like the look and the feel of some of the mirrorless cameras but the cost of a good one simply rules it out for me.
I did consider the bridge option, but both the ones I looked at did not "feel right" in my hand, if that makes any sense?
Anyway, once I get the camera and get a chance to do a few exploratory shots I will post a few on here and you can all tell me what I am doing wrong:thumbs: After all if you don't know what's wrong it's difficult to fix it.
Once again thanks for all the replies, I think I learned at least a little from almost all of them.
All the best.
Mike
 

ps3737

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
161
Location
New Zealand
Hi Mike,
I see you've made a buying decision but maybe if we meet up out at Meola I'll compare notes and show you the Olympus PEN E-P3 I've been using for over a year now. Gave up after on DSLRs after my Pentax K-7 died from a knock on a mangrove and saltwater intrusion ...
I'd not worry about marginal issues like sensor size, the difference between APS and micro 4/3 is a few mm and the current technology shows that the 16 MP Sony sensor in the Oly E-M5 and E-PL5 can match a Sony NEX 5 or 6 (or Apla DSLR using same sensor) for pixel sharpness. The biggest advantage in my experience is smaller bulk and weight of the body and lenses. Very important when actually fishing with a camera around your neck. The live-view screens in the mirrorless are great because they show what your file will look like because they apply the exposure and file settings, unlike a separate optical system.
The results are great and I've had many of them published in NZ Fishing News and in FlyLife - and editors have never had anything but praise for the image quality.
Anyway the camera you've chosen looks to be a versatile tool and will deliver great image quality.
Hope to meet up with you out there sometime soon, summer is here and the snapper should be biting!
cheers,
Mark

2658d1328676918-olympus-om-d-e-m5-officially-announced-comparedtorebel.jpg
 
Last edited:

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
28,773
Location
Embra
Some good input there Mark, and highlighting the different priorities we have... and should probably try to be more understanding of - myself included :eek:.

It looks like your priority there and maybe the prioirity of many going for a mirrorless or bridge camera is that of size/bulk/weight. It is an issue for many, and it is an issue for me when I go fishing hill lochs, or travelling light, down a river. That's when I accept I have to compromise and take the compact and leave the SLR behind. I accept the images I get will not be as good as I would have got with the SLR. I have a good compact and the images are very good and have been accepted by magazines, calendars, commercial websites and other buyers. But at the end of the day, I know I could have got better with the SLR. And it's not just image quality in terms of pixels and sharpness I am talking about, but the ability to get the decisive composition at the perfect aperture and shutter speed.

At the end of the day, it depends on whether you want what is accepted, or what is the very best that could be achieved.

If your priority is not size/bulk/weight, you have no restrictions on the camera body and so you may as well have the body that does the best job. The body that does the best job is a full sized SLR - that's why pro photographers use SLRs the size and set-up of a gripped 40D, not the size of an 1100D. The ability to change settings quickly and get the shot are so greatly improved. So, when I look at the image you posted, which I assume was to show how much smaller the one on the left was than the 1100D on the right, I look at the 1100D and say: "Too small for me!" :eek: (Mike - don't let that put you off the 600D - it's perfect for you :thumbs:)

So, when your priority is not size/bulk/weight, what is it? I would suggest the priority that you should put first is the lens - ahead of the camera. I've been 'into' photography long enough now to appreciate why it is that 90% of the photography geeks and 'pixel peepers' on the photography forums are in love with their lenses, not their cameras. Camera bodies come and go - wait 12 months and something better will come along... that's another reason to go SLR rather than bridge - upgrade body, keep lenses :thumbs:

I'm not saying the lens is all-important and the camera doesn't matter, but if you take size/bulk/weight out of the equation, it lets you look at lenses seriously, which you should - they are very often what gives one image the edge over another. I've got some 'good glass', eg the Canon EF 135 mm f2, and I've got some 'compromise glass', eg the Tamron 18-270mm. I'm not knocking the Tamron - it does what is says on the tin - takes you from 18mm to 270mm and back. But when I see some of the shots I have taken with it, I just wish I had had the 135mm f2 on at the time. I'm not saying everyone is going to have a 135mm f2 up their sleeve - I'm just trying to stress that if you want to capture the very best images in a situation, you will have the lens for the job at hand, and it will not be a jack-of-all-trades like a superzoom. Once you get some good glass on your camera you 'get the picture' - don't ask me - ask Stuartpengs, Scratch, Midlander, Endrick, Boorod, Steve Kale, Simmo and the other SLR users on here.

Will the lens on a bridge camera or the lenses available for mirrorless cameras do all the jobs required of them if you want the very very best images? As far as bridge cameras go, I don't think so. As far as mirrorless compact cameras go, it seems that everything is still aiming at the priority being size/bulk/weight, and if it is, the priority is not lens quality, and therefore image quality is acceptable, but in many cases not optimal.

Now, obviously, a lot is going to depend on whether someone like Mike who is looking to move up from point-and-shooty photography to the next level is going to make his priority size/bulk/weight, or whether he is going to want to explore the world of lenses. As I've said - after light - that's where it's at. Telephoto lenses for shooting wildlife. Macro lenses for shooting bugs and beasties. Fast primes for action shots, portraits and the sharp-as-a-tack shots that knock you out your seat. It's expensive, and not required by most folk for sure.

I accept that if you are only going to have one camera, you may need to compromise so that size/bulk/weight is high in the list of priorities. However, I am kind of assuming that most folk can have something that will fit in their fishing waistcoat that will take a half-decent shot, and that we are looking into what gear to buy to develop our photography a bit further...

One more wee point regarding viewing the image as it will be recorded on the LCD of bridge/mirrorless cameras... modern dSLRs do this as well :thumbs:

Cheers,

Col
 
Last edited:

mike j thomas

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
618
Location
Gosport Hampshire
Got the new camera home, as you can see in the evening, not great light and all settings on auto, quite pleased with the result, he does not normally sit still as soon as you get a camera out he legs it!
Anyway, here is George:
IMG_0015_zpsefaa3a13.jpg

All the best.
Mike
 

Endrick

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,405
Location
West Stirlingshire
Colin,

We had a lecture on the mirrorless - actually on the Leica M9 and had the chance to look at one. Ultimately the M9 does take higher quality pictures out of a smaller camera with smaller lenses. However while it would be very nice to have one (and I would if I couldn't find another use for the £10k it would cost for one with a couple of lenses). I prefer my DSLRs.

A one sentence summary of the downside. Two main problems: telephoto shooting - Leica only make lenses up to 135mm and around that is the practical limit, second it's pretty well hopeless for fast action shots. Come to think of it the same problems as compact and bridge cameras.

Malcolm
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
28,773
Location
Embra
For sure Malcolm - it's not as if the mirrorless set-up is a cheaper option, as looking at the prices involved, you can in many brands set yourself up with an SLR and full sized lenses for less than their mirrorless system.

I have no doubt that if you put them on a tripod and shoot a test card the image quality of the mirrorless cameras - especially with a wee 50 mm prime or similar on them will be every bit as good as from an SLR with a C-sized sensor (which is what we are largely comparing them with here, rather than full frame).

However, I can guarantee that if I went out in the field and spent a day covering a group of anglers fishing - shots of casting, playing fish, fish in play, all the usual stuff... or, as I often do at this time of year - spend a day covering a pheasant shoot - if I did that with a compact mirrorless camera and I did it with an SLR, I would bring home altogether better work (as oppoosed to image quality) from the SLR.

I can say that with 100% assurance without even having seen a mirrrorless compact up close, because I have seen enough pictures of the size and layout of the bodies and they are not designed to spend a day shooting action in the field. They will have their place, I have no doubt, or else camera manufacturers would not be making them. I am still not sure what that place is though, and I know it's not the sort of stuff I use a camera for.

For anglers, I guess it comes back to this issue of wanting to concentrate on the fishing and have a camera with you to take shots (ie compromises being made), as opposed to having the best camera you can have for your budget and that camera will be the priority on the occasions where you are going out to take photographs, not to go fishing. No compromises. :thumbs:

If you reckon a bridge or mirrorless system camera will fit in your tackle bag, whereas an SLR won't, that is fine. It's your choice, but please don't try and tell me that your camera work will be just as good as you could have got with an SLR and specialist lenses, because it won't be. It will be acceptable, but it won't be optimal. If you want optimal, get an SLR and specialist lenses and leave the fishing rod at home a few days a year. For the rest of the time a good compact will give you those 'acceptable' shots. If you go this road, you will have the optimal set-up for all the other uses - photographing the family and pets, nature, street scenes and architecture, the countryside and everything else folk photograph. :thumbs:

Col
 

Guest100

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
10,276
Location
North Wales
I remember reading somewhere that the percentage of DSLR's bought, and the kit lens never taken off was staggeringly high. Lots of people buy them for the same reason, they think if they point them and shoot they'll instantly get better results, which we know isn't true. The mirror-less format appears to be aimed squarely at that market from what I can gather. The casual DSLR user who'll never push a camera to its limits to extract the best out of it and their photography.

If you're serious about landscape photography for example, or even photography in general, you're going to be lugging around your £200 tripod, with its £200 head on it, weighing in at a couple of kilos, a set of filters to cover most light conditions, a filter holder, a remote shutter release, a couple of batteries, some spare CF cards. You're already way past the point of the morror-less system, its portability and the fact it may fit in your coat pocket. It may well do, but all of the paraphernalia that any landscape photographer is going to need if he/she's semi serious is still going to need the ubiquitous back-back, mirror-less camera or not. The same for shooting indoors. A speed-light in the hot shoe (which is pretty much essential for quality indoor shooting) and you're back to losing its 'in the pocket' attraction. Then add to those basic problems the focus tracking problems they all still suffer from and it's little wonder serious photographers still won't give them a second look as a primary body.

They're a compromise, targeted very cleverly at an obvious market, and for that reason they'll sell in huge numbers. However, for the most they'll end up exactly the same as the budget DSLR's that never have their kit lens taken off - point and shoot.
 
Last edited:

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
28,773
Location
Embra
...The same for shooting indoors. A speed-light in the hot shoe (which is pretty much essential for quality indoor shooting) and you're back to loosing its 'in the pocket' attraction...

Interesting strategy with Canon's mirrorless, the EOS M... it doesn't have an onboard flash - presumably to keep it as small as possible? Still all about this size/weight/bulk issue :rolleyes:. So, they supply it with a new teeny speedlite, the 90EX. Or maybe that is to make it look more like a professional set-up in miniature :confused:

Actually, I was thinking about getting a 90EX to carry about with me (EOS M not the only camera without a flash :whistle:)

Col
 

Endrick

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,405
Location
West Stirlingshire
You learn something new every day. I had until this thread just ignored articles on these small cheap mirrorless assuming they were just cheap imitations of the Leica M9 rangefinder (approx £4000).

As a result of this thread I now know what you are talking about and realise that that I shouldn't assume anything!

Anyway I eventually found a comparison article from a guy I find interesting but treat with some scepticism on the Leica M9 comparing it to a Nikon and Canon DSLR with 28mm lenses.

May be of interest LEICA vs Canon vs Nikon sharpness


Malcolm
 

guest70

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
4,450
Location
Lancashire
I remember reading somewhere that the percentage of DSLR's bought, and the kit lens never taken off was staggeringly high. Lots of people buy them for the same reason, they think if they point them and shoot they'll instantly get better results, which we know isn't true. The mirror-less format appears to be aimed squarely at that market from what I can gather. The casual DSLR user who'll never push a camera to its limits to extract the best out of it and their photography.

It struck me when I was on holiday in Cornwall this summer, just how many people own a DSLR for exactly that reason. It rained one day and we spent an entirely underwhelming (and costly) few hours trawling around the Eden Complex. Man alive, it was auto mode JPEG hell in there with dozens of people lugging their little SLRs around and taking flash shots of their other halves posing in front of a bloody palm tree!

A bloke I know has just upgraded from a 550D (a really decent bit of kit), to a 7D because he felt he wasn't getting the high impact photos he wanted from the former. He shoots JPEGs in auto, thinking the various modes (landscape, portrait etc), should be doing the work for him. Lord knows I've tried to explain....to no avail. His wife has actually booked him a session with a pro for Christmas; maybe then the penny might drop.

It annoys me because I wish I had the spare cash to just ignorantly throw into something like that. Ah well........
 

Latest posts

Top