Mirrorless - and why they?re (arguably) better

Mirrorless - and why they’re (arguably) better

In late 2013, I bought my first mirrorless camera: because it was new, I admit. It seemed to be something Sony were keen on, and I admit to being taken by the hype. In retrospect, I’m not sure that Sony really understood what they were doing with the Alpha 7 and 7R, but what one Jessops salesman said to me sticks. ‘Sony are making so many sensors for other manufacturers that they can afford to launch cameras to test the sensors.’

It took a year or two shooting with the 7 alongside my Alpha 900, because it took me time to get familiar with the new control layout, and to start to trust the camera. It was the same with my first digital cameras – I was on my fourth digital camera before I really started to mainline with it, and film started to take second place.

Now, there’s hype. There are technical reasons why mirrorless cameras are better. And there are practical reasons that will (probably) convince you pretty quickly once you understand them.

And there are three big reasons to stick with what you’ve got: if you have a massive investment in a DSLR and specialist lenses; or if the DSLR offers you advantages that no mirrorless camera shares. If you have the ultimately-weatherproof, case-hardened pro body that cost you over £5k new, and 20mp is fine, stick with it. You’re in the company of most of the newspaper and sports specialists, for whom ultimate sharpness matters less than getting a good image in moonlight, come rain or shine.

And if the technology is secondary, and you don’t make big demands of your camera, there’s no need to change. Or if cost is an overriding factor (as it is for more people while the virus is wrecking the economy), you’ll also want to stick with what you’ve got.

There are two major reasons why you might – if you have the disposable income – want to buy mirrorless.

One is that (Lumix apart) they are smaller and lighter than a DSLR: ageing shoulders will appreciate this, and mountain climbers will be glad of replacing camera with Kendal Mint Cake. And those with smaller hands will appreciate a body that fits even the daintiest mitt easily and comfortably.



The other is, very simply, what the viewfinder does. They vary, and in some conditions most of them are not as good as in optimum circumstances. But overall, think of having live view all the time, but with the added benefits of having a continuous visual guide to exposure, white balance, and focus anywhere in the frame. If I’m shooting sepia images, my viewfinder shows sepia. If I’ve left negative exposure compensation dialled in, my viewfinder image is dark. And if I engage the manual focus magnifier, I can compose, home in on the eyelash or petal I want to for perfect focus, and click – all with the camera at my eye.

Legacy lenses? If your own brand has now got mirrorless models, there’s a cheap adaptor, and reports suggest that they don’t impair functionality (for which read speed and accuracy of focus and exposure). And if you buy Sony, there are excellent adaptors that allow you to use your old lenses on your new Alpha 7 (or 9). The only downside is in the studio, where you lose the exposure and white balance advantages, though you still have a very different experience with manual focus.

I’ve found that a big plus for me is that I can use literally any lens made for a 35mm camera – without a mirror box, the lens flange to sensor distance is less than any camera I’ve met. I can use a pre-war Leica screw lens on my Alphas, or Contax glass, if I want to. It doesn’t matter if the lens is stopped down – if the exposure’s going to be correct, the viewfinder compensates for the lack of light on the sensor. This means that manual aperture lenses are easy to use, and for a Lensbaby fan like me, this is perfect.

Continuous, informative live view. Try it – I suspect the results will delight you.