Going Mirrorless: 10 Reasons To Ditch The DSLR With Pro Photographer Jason Lanier
Oct 29, 2014
Tiffany Mueller
Tiffany Mueller is a photographer and content strategist based in Hawi, Hawaii. Her work has been shared by top publications like The New York Times, Adobe, and others.
Share:
Photographers are becoming more and more curious about the advantages mirrorless cameras have over DSLRs. In fact, judging by some of the comments on the Migrating To Mirrorless post here on DIYPhotography, many of you have already ditched the DSLR in favor of a mirrorless model. That’s precisely what pro photographer, Jason Lanier, did when gave Nikon the boot and switched over to Sony mirrorless cameras. In the 24-minute long video below, Lanier explains his decision to leave behind the leading DSLR manufacturers and, while I do love my full frame camera bodies, his words definitely got me thinking.
“I’ve been shooting Nikon for my whole life…I love Nikon…I didn’t leave Nikon because of a bitterness, there was no angry dispute, there was no angry divorce. With Nikon it was a matter of me finding something so remarkably better, I made the switch.”
In the video, Lanier goes through the top 10 reasons he made the switch and in the process answers a lot of questions commonly asked by other inquisitive photographers who may also be considering switching. All of his points were pertinent. I especially enjoyed his response to conundrum of having one’s skills assessed simply from the size of the camera one chooses to carry around. Let’s face it, showing up to photograph a wedding with a compact looking micro four thirds could land you in a really uncomfortable situation. His response: “If you’re worried about the size of my camera, you’re worried about the wrong thing.”
[ via The Phoblographer ]
Tiffany Mueller
Tiffany Mueller is a photographer and content strategist based in Hawi, Hawaii. Her work has been shared by top publications like The New York Times, Adobe, and others.
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
33 responses to “Going Mirrorless: 10 Reasons To Ditch The DSLR With Pro Photographer Jason Lanier”
nykon? what is that?
Totally agree! And here’s my own experience as a professional mirrorless reportage photographer.
http://stefanomoscardini.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/professional-reportage-with-olympus-om-d-e-m5-my-transition-from-reflex-to-mft-cameras
what are the “downsides” to using a mirror less camera?
There are a couple downsides.
1: Lens selection. The amount and quality of the glass available for mirrorless isn’t as good as Nikon or Canon; though it is rapidly improving. Aside from specialty lenses, there’s almost always a native equivalent available.
2: Sports photography. The focus on the mirrorless just isn’t as quick. It’s getting better rapidly, but for subjects that move very quickly (athletes, birds in flight, racecars) the DLSR is still a better tool.
3: People don’t take you as seriously. This can be either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the situation.
4. Smaller ≠ Better.
Sometimes, you need big body, with big, ergonomic grip, to use telephoto lenses.
Thank Gvido
Ok: this is the new most clueless post.
…The smaller the sensor, the smaller the telephoto lens is. You end up with something equally well-balanced BUT WEIGHING HALF AS MUCH.
I may be totally clueless, but even I know, that there are some clear benefits when using larger sensor. Sure, the size isn’t one, but image quality and option of using shallow DOF is something a lot of photographers require. :D
But who knows? Maybe I am so clueless, so I don’t understand that mobile phones with lens adapters are the future of photography. Because, as you wrote: “The smaller the sensor, the smaller the telephoto lens is.”, and you can’t go smaller than phone”…
>>>I may be totally clueless, but even I know, that there are some clear benefits when using larger sensor. Sure, the size isn’t one, but image quality and option of using shallow DOF is something a lot of photographers require. :D<<>>so I don’t understand that mobile phones with lens adapters are the future of photography. Because, as you wrote: “The smaller the sensor, the smaller the telephoto lens is.”, and you can’t go smaller than phone”.<<<
This may seem like a smart argument to you, but Getty Images has shots in it taken with iPhones – *without* using extension lenses. The best smartphone cameras can already produce images in the same class as 35mm film – and they will get better. They're already better than DSLRs in some ways. My phone doesn't just have a better lens and sensor than Cartier Bresson had to work with – probably almost as good as Gary Winograd's gear in fact – it flash syncs at 1/16,000 and has better stablization than any DSLR. So there are shots I could get with it that I couldn't with my other cameras.
Of course you probably couldn't get these shots – that's because you're a camera buyer, not a photographer, so you won't understand the benefit of the faster flash sync. In fact, you're probably thinking right now "But the phone doesn't have a hotshoe!"
And if I was willing to spend the money then I could buy a Sony 20MB sensor lens module for my mobile that would make it effectively an RX100 – a camera NatGeo is using instead of DSLRs.
So *not* a smart argument on your part.
I understand, that you are passionate about MFT, but you have to understand, that this smaller sensor system isn’t for everyone, just, like medium format isn’t for everyone either.
I am sure, that MFT sensor is good enough, for you, but most photographers, who care about maximum image quality, will chose 35mm, or APS-C at least.
I don’t know, how much you know about physics of optics and image sensors, but you don’t have to rocket surgeon, to understand, that bigger sensor surface = generally better image quality. When it comes how crop factor – search on youtube: “Crop Factor with ISO & Aperture: How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon & Fuji Cheat You”
>>>I understand, that you are passionate about MFT<<>>I am sure, that MFT sensor is good enough, for you, but most photographers, who care about maximum image quality, will chose 35mm, or APS-C at least.<<<
Larger sensors don't give better image quality; sometimes the **combination** of a larger sensor and a high quality lens will in **particular circumstances**, but probably only 1/100 of FF users own that sort of glass.
This seems to me to be simple, but it's still beyond you. But again:
1. A system with a poor lens and a good sensor resolves at the level of the weakest link – the lens
2. A sensor that has a 1 stop advantage in noise at a given ISO will be out-performed by a sensor with a 1-stop faster lens with higher accutance. An EM1 at 1600iso outperforms a 5D at 3200iso, and that's how you'll shoot them unless you can afford $5000 for an L-series f2.8 24-80 instead of the $1000 the (somewhat sharper) Olympus equivalent. And most of you can't afford that $5000, so you're using a re-ground milk bottle of a kit zoom – or maybe an f4 consumer grade 24-80 that, as well as being a stop dimmer than the Olly lens, has MTF scores that would fail Olympus quality control.
Is this really too complex for you to understand? Apparently, yes. The camera companies know that you're not smart enough to understand how your cameras work and want, like a fat guy buying lycra "team" shorts and a 15lb carbon fibre racing bike, to think you're using "pro" gear, so they take your money. Oh well – the Japanese economy probably needs it, and otherwise you'd probably just buy lottery tickets.
(Oh – and the sensor on my main camera is not m43. It's a medium format quality moire filter-less sensor that outputs 45MB RAWs. Behind a lens that's provably sharper than anything Canon or Nikon make. IQ matters to me; I just don't fool myself by buying gear that looks good but won't perform.)
Thank you David
3. Are you seriously worried about morons’ opinions of you? I cannot comprehend how this is an issue. I’d laugh my ass off at them.
Also 2. Most who knock mirrorless focus speeds have never tried the newest hardware (something like a GH4 etc.)
The focus speed has improved significantly with cameras like the GH4 and the A6000. And in most situations, it’s more than adequate. But it’s still slower than a D3 or a 5Dm3. The only time this ever becomes an issue is in extreme cases like birds in flight or fast action sports.
And perception does matter. There are situations where you’ll want to stand out, and situations where it’s beneficial to remain inconspicuous. For instance, I’ve been able to take my NEX into situations (concerts and festivals) where people with DSLRs were turned away.
I don’t mean to come across as badmouthing mirrorless systems. I’ve been shooting mirrorless since the original NEX3 was first released, and I love the system. But drawbacks and shortcomings do exist.
Old topic, but I’ll add a few:
4) Controls. The larger bodies have bigger controls and more of them. You can change many settings in a single click on a pro body.
5) Sensor size. A 35mm sensor with 24MP and a an APS-C sensor with 24MP will not produce equivalent images. The closer the pixels, the greater the noise.
6) Stability. Large and heavy cameras don’t move as much and they give you more to hold on to. I have huge hands and using tiny cameras is painful.
There’s nothing wrong with mirrorless. They’re the future for most pro photographers. The decision to go one way or the other depends upon your needs.
>>>5) Sensor size. A 35mm sensor with 24MP and a an APS-C sensor with 24MP will not produce equivalent images. The closer the pixels, the greater the noise.<<<
That's obvious – but many obvious things are actually at least partly wrong.
1. It's only true if light is dim enough for noise to be issue.
2. It assumes that aperture and hence ISO are the same, when a smaller sensor camera can carry a wider lens for the same cost and weight.
3. The greater sensor pitch the stronger the required moire filter, losing resolution
Very often, the smaller sensor comes out ahead.
Old topic, but I’ll add a few for people finding it now:
4) Controls. The larger bodies have bigger controls and more of them. You can change many settings in a single click on a pro body.
5) Sensor size. A 35mm sensor with 24MP and a an APS-C sensor with 24MP will not produce equivalent images. The closer the pixels, the greater the noise.
6) Stability. Large and heavy cameras don’t move as much and they give you more to hold on to. I have huge hands and using tiny cameras is painful.
There’s nothing wrong with mirrorless. They’re the future for most pro photographers. The decision to go one way or the other depends upon your needs.
>>>6) Stability. Large and heavy cameras don’t move as much and they give you more to hold on to. I have huge hands and using tiny cameras is painful.<<<
Given that normal people can make shots with a standard lens at about 1/4 sec on an em5, this is even sillier than the previous silliest post.
And, really, if you're such a huge-handed freak who can't use a GH4 or or EM1, well, you're 0.001% of the human race and you're not going to sway the market. The natural size of a camera is between a Kodak 110 and a Nikon F2 – because those sizes are the ones that best fit the human hand.
>>>1: Lens selection. The amount and quality of the glass available for mirrorless isn’t as good as Nikon or Canon; though it is rapidly improving.<<>>2: Sports photography. The focus on the mirrorless just isn’t as quick. It’s getting better rapidly, but for subjects that move very quickly (athletes, birds in flight, racecars) the DLSR is still a better tool.<<>>3: People don’t take you as seriously.<<<
Where people equal other gear fondlers, yes. In the real world, stories from pros who switched generally say otherwise.
There’s also the matter of the external (and not included) electronic viewfinder. Back screens are great when you’re not in direct sunlight, but when you are in direct sun, they’re nearly impossible to use. So, you’ll want that external electronic viewfinder… add a few hundred dollars to the $650 price quoted. Then consider the inherently fragile nature of something that sits in the camera hot shoe rather than being built into the structure of the body, and ask yourself how many times it will survive being mounted and dismounted. I don’t mind the “mirrorless” aspect, nor the idea of an electronic viewfinder, I’ve been using both technologies for years and I like them. But, the hidden costs and the fragility of having everything be modular concern me.
Not sure what you are referring to, both these cameras have viewfinders built in, also the modular system isnt a bad thing, look at hasselblad – i still use my 1969 500c and can change every bit of the camera – meaning i can make an old camera like that digital.
Whoops… I am behind the times. Previous editions in the NEX form factor had no internally contained viewfinder. My bad for not checking specs before commenting. I stand corrected, and thanks for the information.
Dear mirrorless users: Please stop waving your mirrorless diks in everyone’s faces.
Eventually, I will switch to mirrorless, when the system will have features I require.
But, I won’t bend to “this pro-tog switched to this system, so you should too” type of advertisement.
Four problems with Sony A7s stop me from changing from Nikon to Sony: 1- Focus, is terrible specially in low light, 2- Frames per second at 2.5fps is too slow. 3- very little support from 3rd parties, 4- too many mounts always changing, after A mount and E mount, maybe after I invest in the system Sony makes a new “B” mount
Sony should look at Nikon 1, V2 and V3, amazing focus at 20fps
So the A mount is introduced in 1985, and 28 years later, another mount is introduced, which is to a certain degree compatible with the A mount. Hardly enough to warrant “always changing”. Also, the Nikon 1 system is a different mount than the F mount, so…..
And Canon has the EF-M mount. Oh no what could this mean. They have three mounts just like Sony!
I will not switch to mirrorless no matter what people throw at me. I like the cameras, they’re really cool, but if I want one, it’ll be as a second body or as a replacement for my compact camera, not as a main cam. Mirrorless is cool and all, and the weight is definitely a plus, but I like the feel of holding a DSLR better.
I tried a friend’s a7 and it is very nice, but…the evf would eventually fry my eyeball. it is so much easier to look through real optics, especially waiting for the right shot.
Heck, I just bought a DSLR last year. I’m also still using my 34 year old SLR. I’m not moving to mirrorless.
I quite agree with you Jason, and the fact that mirrorless cameras are
now taking the lead in terms of features, convenience, and portability! A
long-time Nikon shooter myself, I have experienced this with a recent
add of a Fuji X-E2 to my bag to be lighter and more versatile (haven’t
switched yet for several reasons as I think those systems are not up to par yet with DLSRs — I detail why here :
http://www.maxriche.com/blog/2014/11/review-fuji-x-e2-moving-away-predator-photographer/)
but I agree with you: the main question then is When will the big
manufacturers finally come to par and incorporate all those innovations
into their flagship DSLRs! At least, that’s a reason why I’m holding to
my Nikon D800 for now and not yeidling to the gear envy of switching to
the D810.
All great points here in your video! Thanks for sharing!
I have switched from Canon to Fuji. Started with an AE-1 and now have gone to an XT-1. Great cameras and great lens selection. My photos are sharper and have better color.
The biggest reason for DSLRs seems to be forgotten here: THE VIEWFINDER. I think it will take very very very long until the digital viewfinder in mirrorless cameras is realy usable. The current viewfinder in Samsungs NX or Sonys A7 is terrible! It is slow and the image ugly. A nice viewfinder is so much better…
Also the handling is much better if the camera is bigger and doesn’t feel like a smartphone in my hands ;-)
>>>The biggest reason for DSLRs seems to be forgotten here: THE VIEWFINDER.<<>>I think it will take very very very long until the digital viewfinder in mirrorless cameras is realy usable. The current viewfinder in Samsungs NX or Sonys A7 is terrible! It is slow and the image ugly. A nice viewfinder is so much better…<<<
Right…. Because we all know that the pace or improvement in the electronics industry is glacial. And that the smart way to judge how good they are is by looking at the worst instead of the best. (Both those statements were ironic – and you can find "glacial" in the dictionary.)