You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Daddy's daughter
I need to buy an entry-level DSLR or a mirrorless as soon as the money is there. (By the way, what is "järjestelmäkamera" in English?)
I need to buy an entry-level DSLR or a mirrorless as soon as the money is there. (By the way, what is "järjestelmäkamera" in English?)
I think it is just SLR but, now with mirrorless (i have an Olympus EM-1) it doesn't cover the range. The Finnish word covers the range though because I think it just alludes to the complexity/capabilities of it.
Flashes are another class of component in addition to lenses make up the set of interchangeable camera components. Single lens reflective cameras are the most common type these days. So, a mirrorless camera shows the view you're about to take a picture of on a screen whereas the SLR has a mirror to direct the image you get from the lens to a viewfinder? Is there any reason to prefer one over the other? Is it easier to keep the camera stable if your eye is against the viewfinder? Or is it sometimes an advantage to be able to look at a screen and see the view if want to take your camera someplace so narrow you can't put your head in there? :D
wEll, even on an SLR these days you don't need the viewfinder and can use the screen. The benefit for me having mirrorless is the size and weight. My 40D with lenses was my complete carry on allowance. My Olympus is a couple kilos and much smaller overall. It is convenience. However, if I am shooting a wedding I will borrow a friends canon with full prime lenses as the feel of the image and quality is superior. At this point, I don't think you will find many real professionals using a mirrorless for more than a run around.