# New DSLR or Mirrorless?



## mpldenco

Looking for some opinions on buying a new camera body. I'm feeling a bit weighed down by the literal weight of the camera system and the amount of equipment I have. I am looking to lighten up a bit by paring down what I have and upgrading my Nikon D810 camera body. I have Nikon lenses which I love so I think I want to keep them but I'm not totally sure. Is it worth it to get a new DSLR or should I be switching to mirrorless? And if I do switch to a Nikon Z6 or Z7 in order to keep some of my lenses, are there cons to using adapters to get them to work? Or should I try to get Z mount lenses instead down the line? Just starting to think about this and I'm open to suggestions! Thanks.


----------



## Jeff15

Hello and welcome, if you go Mirrorless you will save at least half the weight of DSLR gear..............


----------



## ac12

Jeff15 said:


> Hello and welcome, if you go Mirrorless you will save at least half the weight of DSLR gear..............



Maybe in the body, but not the lens. FX is FX, the image circle is the same size.
If you want to get the lens size/weight down, you need to go to a smaller format, or a lens with a new lightweight design.


----------



## petrochemist

I find the big advantage of mirrorless systems is their flexibility. Unlike with a DSLR I can use practically any old lens (modern lenses with electronic focus & aperture are a pain to adapt) The EVF also allows me to see in low light (useful for macro or at night) & also shows any IR etc effects the sensor sees (great for converted cameras but also when just adding a filter to  a standard model)

When it comes to action shots like BIF & airshows my DSLR still wins out, but the mirrorless bodies have taken over with everything else.



ac12 said:


> Maybe in the body, but not the lens. FX is FX, the image circle is the same size.
> If you want to get the lens size/weight down, you need to go to a smaller format, or a lens with a new lightweight design.



I use a Industar 50 on my A7ii (via a techart pro) The combined weight of the techart adapter & lens is pretty minimal for a FF AF 50mm lens. but it's hardly a new lens design!

There are quite a few old rangefinder lenses that perform quite well on this sort of set-up all are very lightweight compared to modern lenses.


----------



## RVT1K

I have too much invested in my lenses to switch platforms. 

But if I were just starting out, I would go with a mirrorless system. 

What is deficient in your D810 that makes you want to upgrade?


----------



## beagle100

Jeff15 said:


> Hello and welcome, if you go Mirrorless you will save at least half the weight of DSLR gear..............



at least ....  and mirrorless can easily use DSLR lenses
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## ac12

beagle100 said:


> Jeff15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello and welcome, if you go Mirrorless you will save at least half the weight of DSLR gear..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at least ....  and mirrorless can easily use DSLR lenses
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
Click to expand...


Only if you go to a smaller sensor, and use the smaller APS-C or m4/3 non-pro lenses.
If you put a FF pro lens (like the 70-200/2.8) on an APS-C camera, there is ZERO savings on the lens size/weight.

And NOT ALL dSLR lenses will work on all mirrorless cameras.
ALL of my Nikon AF/AFS lenses turn into *fully manual* lenses on my Olympus; no autofocus, no control of the aperture from the camera, no VR.
Nikon AF lenses will NOT autofocus with the FTZ adapter.  The FTZ only supports the electronic AFS lenses, not the mechanical AF lenses.


----------



## SquarePeg

mpldenco said:


> Looking for some opinions on buying a new camera body. I'm feeling a bit weighed down by the literal weight of the camera system and the amount of equipment I have. I am looking to lighten up a bit by paring down what I have and upgrading my Nikon D810 camera body. I have Nikon lenses which I love so I think I want to keep them but I'm not totally sure. Is it worth it to get a new DSLR or should I be switching to mirrorless? And if I do switch to a Nikon Z6 or Z7 in order to keep some of my lenses, are there cons to using adapters to get them to work? Or should I try to get Z mount lenses instead down the line? Just starting to think about this and I'm open to suggestions! Thanks.



Having had similar issues with feeling weighted down by my Nikon dslr gear, I made the switch to mirrorless (Fuji Xt2) 2 years ago and am very happy with the move.  Originally my thought was to buy the mirrorless to use for travel and keep my Nikon gear for my more “serious” photography.  I enjoyed the size and function and results of the Fuji so much that I soon sold off all of my Nikon gear.  I’ve accumulated a bunch of lenses since then but my kit when I go out shooting is typically the 18-55, 50-230 and 60mm macro.  This weighs less than half of what I was carrying for similar gear with my Nikon and has so many other advantages (search this forum for my posts about Fuji love).  Best move I’ve ever made.


----------



## Derrel

do not listen to beagle,s blanket proclamation that all DSLR lenses work "easily" on mirrorless...that is a canard that he is fond of repeating here on TPF... consider what it means to lose auto focus and aperture control, etc. instead of a blanket endorsement of using mirroless cameras with legacy lenses, look at the advantages of using modern , autofocusing,system-native lenses on any camera that you buy and hope to use. for example using a 1950s Industar 50 mm lens on a 2017 mirrorless...that's kind of interesting .., bragging about using a 60-year-old lens on  21st century camera... with no autofocusing, with no evaluative metering, with only limited exposure methods, it's not a panacea, but merely a clever trick taking you back roughly to the 1950s in terms of The way your camera operates, versus instant autofocusing with system-native  lenses. Keep in mind that many SLR  wide-angle lenses of old are retrofocus and the newest designs are not, and Nikon and Canon and Sony's newest lenses are of extremely high-quality and are optimized for use on modern digital sensors. Remember the "Red dot "issue that came from using film era lenses on digital cameras? There is nothing quite like a big orange diaphragm-shaped ghost in the middle of your images... this was a real problem with many lenses about 10 years ago, and manufacturers repositioned the lens diaphragms and reworked their Optical designs to eliminate this issue. For example Tamron's line of DI lenses, which stands for digitally integrated, or The line of extremely high-quality new lenses made by Olympus, and Panasonic, and Leica specifically for use on  mirrorless cameras.


----------



## beagle100

ac12 said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello and welcome, if you go Mirrorless you will save at least half the weight of DSLR gear..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at least ....  and mirrorless can easily use DSLR lenses
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you go to a smaller sensor, and use the smaller APS-C or m4/3 non-pro lenses.
> If you put a FF pro lens (like the 70-200/2.8) on an APS-C camera, there is ZERO savings on the lens size/weight.
> 
> And NOT ALL dSLR lenses will work on all mirrorless cameras.
> ALL of my Nikon AF/AFS lenses turn into *fully manual* lenses on my Olympus; no autofocus, no control of the aperture from the camera, no VR.
> Nikon AF lenses will NOT autofocus with the FTZ adapter.  The FTZ only supports the electronic AFS lenses, not the mechanical AF lenses.
Click to expand...


actually  mirrorless cameras (APS-C or full frame) can *easily use* DSLR lens  (Canon)
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## D7K

FWIW I tried moving to mirrorless from DSLR, It just didn't sit with me, the weight, once you add the lenses was not so different to be honest, I stuck with it for around 8 month, the main things I didn't like was how it was in my hand, the balance with some lenses was not great, battery life was absolutely awful. I sold it and moved back to DSLR picking up the D850. Never looked back,  maybe in a couple of years I'll look into the whichever version of the Z series is out then but for now I'll stick with DSLR.  I read about the Z9 and the other Z model coming out soon but I can't say I'm so tempted. To each their own however..


----------



## petrochemist

beagle100 said:


> actually  mirrorless cameras (APS-C or full frame) can *easily use* DSLR lens  (Canon)


Adding the (Canon) makes a huge difference to your quote. Without it the statement implies all DSLR lenses, which they can dearly always use but sometimes only in manual focus mode & potentially without aperture control a few are impractical to focus as well such as the Minolta Vectris lenses (which are focus by wire & electronic aperture yet a unusual mount not worth reverse engineering). Modern Nikon lenses are considerably more awkward to adapt then EF models but this is now changing as new AF adapters are coming out.

FWIW my A7ii can autofocus the 1950s Industar lenses @Derrel mentioned. It doesn't do quite so well auto focusing long focal length manual lenses though. Auto aperture is still beyond it with this lens.


----------



## jaomul

Both have advantages. If I was starting now and buying new I'd probably look at mirrorless more seriously. Having said that even if DSLR sales are slowing there is enough gear available for the systems to keep things ok for years to come


----------



## ac12

mpldenco said:


> Looking for some opinions on buying a new camera body. I'm feeling a bit weighed down by the literal weight of the camera system and the amount of equipment I have. I am looking to lighten up a bit by paring down what I have and upgrading my Nikon D810 camera body. I have Nikon lenses which I love so I think I want to keep them but I'm not totally sure. Is it worth it to get a new DSLR or should I be switching to mirrorless?



Maybe in the body, but not the lens. FX is FX, the image circle is the same size.
If you want to get the lens size/weight down, you need to go to a smaller format, or a lens with a new lightweight design.  
What I am saying is that the weight savings on a multi-lens kit will be minimal, if any, because the Z lenses will not be any lighter than your F lenses.

What I did to reduce size and weight was to switch from DX to m4/3.
My m4/3 travel camera EM1-mk1 + Panasonic-Lumix 12-60 is significantly smaller and 43% lighter than my D7200 + 18-140.
The big weight savings is in the long lenses, where the crop factor plays to your advantage.
The 40-150 is equivalent to a 80-300 on FX, but MUCH smaller and lighter.
And the m4/3, the 75-300 is equivalent to a 150-600 on a FX camera, but again MUCH smaller and lighter.



mpldenco said:


> And if I do switch to a Nikon Z6 or Z7 in order to keep some of my lenses, are there cons to using adapters to get them to work? Or should I try to get Z mount lenses instead down the line? Just starting to think about this and I'm open to suggestions! Thanks.



The FTZ adapter will NOT autofocus the mechanical autofocus AF lenses, and may some other lenses won't work on the adapter.  You need to research the specifics on the Nikon site.
IMHO, for your primary lenses, you will ultimately want to switch over to Z lenses.


----------



## beagle100

petrochemist said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually  mirrorless cameras (APS-C or full frame) can *easily use* DSLR lens  (Canon)
> 
> 
> 
> Adding the (Canon) makes a huge difference to your quote. Without it the statement implies all DSLR lenses, which they can dearly always use but sometimes only in manual focus mode & potentially without aperture control a few are impractical to focus as well such as the Minolta Vectris lenses (which are focus by wire & electronic aperture yet a unusual mount not worth reverse engineering). Modern Nikon lenses are considerably more awkward to adapt then EF models but this is now changing as new AF adapters are coming out.
> FWIW my A7ii can autofocus the 1950s Industar lenses @Derrel mentioned. It doesn't do quite so well auto focusing long focal length manual lenses though. Auto aperture is still beyond it with this lens.
Click to expand...


true, mirrorless cameras can easily use DSLR lenses ....  Canon* EF and EFS
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## petrochemist

beagle100 said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually  mirrorless cameras (APS-C or full frame) can *easily use* DSLR lens  (Canon)
> 
> 
> 
> Adding the (Canon) makes a huge difference to your quote. Without it the statement implies all DSLR lenses, which they can dearly always use but sometimes only in manual focus mode & potentially without aperture control a few are impractical to focus as well such as the Minolta Vectris lenses (which are focus by wire & electronic aperture yet a unusual mount not worth reverse engineering). Modern Nikon lenses are considerably more awkward to adapt then EF models but this is now changing as new AF adapters are coming out.
> FWIW my A7ii can autofocus the 1950s Industar lenses @Derrel mentioned. It doesn't do quite so well auto focusing long focal length manual lenses though. Auto aperture is still beyond it with this lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true, mirrorless cameras can easily use DSLR lenses ....  Canon* EF and EFS
> www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
Click to expand...


You are repeating yourself.
I don't know of any Canon DSLR lenses other than EF & EF-S (their R & EF-M mounts are mirrorless, the S & J mounts are rangefinders, SD mount was cine, FD, FL, AC were film SLRs, EX1/2 & XL are camcorders, SV still video) Canon have made LOADS of non DSLR mounts, the more common of which can be used on mirrorless with relative ease as well.

Using the TAP, one of my mirrorless cameras can also autofocus Canon S rangefinder & FD/FL lenses, something their native bodies couldn't manage, but with some DSLR lenses (NON Canon) adapting while possible is not so easy. Non canon DSLR lenses without aperture rings start to get more awkward.

Fortunately over 90% of my camera lenses (a wide variety of mounts) can be used on my mirrorless cameras at least as easily as on their original bodies. The slight disappointment is the few that can't are probably the most expensive to replace.


----------



## beagle100

petrochemist said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually  mirrorless cameras (APS-C or full frame) can *easily use* DSLR lens  (Canon)
> 
> 
> 
> Adding the (Canon) makes a huge difference to your quote. Without it the statement implies all DSLR lenses, which they can dearly always use but sometimes only in manual focus mode & potentially without aperture control a few are impractical to focus as well such as the Minolta Vectris lenses (which are focus by wire & electronic aperture yet a unusual mount not worth reverse engineering). Modern Nikon lenses are considerably more awkward to adapt then EF models but this is now changing as new AF adapters are coming out.
> FWIW my A7ii can autofocus the 1950s Industar lenses @Derrel mentioned. It doesn't do quite so well auto focusing long focal length manual lenses though. Auto aperture is still beyond it with this lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true, mirrorless cameras can easily use DSLR lenses ....  Canon* EF and EFS
> www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself.
> I don't know of any Canon DSLR lenses other than EF & EF-S (their R & EF-M mounts are mirrorless, the S & J mounts are rangefinders, SD mount was cine, FD, FL, AC were film SLRs, EX1/2 & XL are camcorders, SV still video) Canon have made LOADS of non DSLR mounts, the more common of which can be used on mirrorless with relative ease as well.
> 
> Using the TAP, one of my mirrorless cameras can also autofocus Canon S rangefinder & FD/FL lenses, something their native bodies couldn't manage, but with some DSLR lenses (NON Canon) adapting while possible is not so easy. Non canon DSLR lenses without aperture rings start to get more awkward.
> 
> Fortunately over 90% of my camera lenses (a wide variety of mounts) can be used on my mirrorless cameras at least as easily as on their original bodies. The slight disappointment is the few that can't are probably the most expensive to replace.
Click to expand...


yes, fortunately a variety of mounts can easily be used on mirrorless cameras
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Solarflare

Jeff15 said:


> Hello and welcome, if you go Mirrorless you will save at least half the weight of DSLR gear..............



This is most extreme bullshit. That doesnt even apply to the bare camera bodies, let alone to realistic camera setups. For example:

Nikon D850 - 1005g
Nikon AF-S 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 - 385g
Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 - 902g
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 e fl vr - 1430g

Sony A7r III - 657g
Sony 16-35mm f4 OSS - 518g
Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM - 925g
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 OSS GM - 1480g

Pretty much the same weight.

*The only way you can save relevant amounts of weight is if you accept a smaller sensor.* And even then you easily end up with the same weight, just by picking a brighter prime lens or something like that.


----------



## AlanKlein

I use a Sony 1"  20mb RX100iv that I keep in my pocket.  My back loves me.  Sony's latest  is the RX100vii.  I make slide shows for a 75" UHDTV that look magnificent including 4K movies the same camera takes.  What do you do with your pictures after you take them?  That would help define what camera you should use.  PS, when i'm shooting and contemplating my navel, I use a RB67 medium format film camera that weighs a ton loaded up with Velvia 50.  But that's not for vacations or travels or parties and things like that.  When I take out my film camera, my back grunts.  
Here're some samples with the RX100iv. American Southwest 2018 - Digital


----------



## RVT1K

And here's an example of how NOT to travel light....


----------



## ac12

beagle100 said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually  mirrorless cameras (APS-C or full frame) can *easily use* DSLR lens  (Canon)
> 
> 
> 
> Adding the (Canon) makes a huge difference to your quote. Without it the statement implies all DSLR lenses, which they can dearly always use but sometimes only in manual focus mode & potentially without aperture control a few are impractical to focus as well such as the Minolta Vectris lenses (which are focus by wire & electronic aperture yet a unusual mount not worth reverse engineering). Modern Nikon lenses are considerably more awkward to adapt then EF models but this is now changing as new AF adapters are coming out.
> FWIW my A7ii can autofocus the 1950s Industar lenses @Derrel mentioned. It doesn't do quite so well auto focusing long focal length manual lenses though. Auto aperture is still beyond it with this lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true, mirrorless cameras can easily use DSLR lenses ....  Canon* EF and EFS
> www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself.
> I don't know of any Canon DSLR lenses other than EF & EF-S (their R & EF-M mounts are mirrorless, the S & J mounts are rangefinders, SD mount was cine, FD, FL, AC were film SLRs, EX1/2 & XL are camcorders, SV still video) Canon have made LOADS of non DSLR mounts, the more common of which can be used on mirrorless with relative ease as well.
> 
> Using the TAP, one of my mirrorless cameras can also autofocus Canon S rangefinder & FD/FL lenses, something their native bodies couldn't manage, but with some DSLR lenses (NON Canon) adapting while possible is not so easy. Non canon DSLR lenses without aperture rings start to get more awkward.
> 
> Fortunately over 90% of my camera lenses (a wide variety of mounts) can be used on my mirrorless cameras at least as easily as on their original bodies. The slight disappointment is the few that can't are probably the most expensive to replace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, fortunately a variety of mounts can easily be used on mirrorless cameras
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
Click to expand...


And if you are UNfortunate to have one that does not, you are SOL.
You have to do a complete system change, since your dSLR lens won't function properly or at all on the mirrorless camera.


----------



## ac12

RVT1K said:


> And here's an example of how NOT to travel light....
> 
> View attachment 180075



That is actually a small/light tripod head, compared to my big/heavy 3-way pan head.


----------



## Derrel

I recognize the lens as a 1980s / 1990s style Tamron Adaptall-II,but is that the 300 F 2.8 or the 400 mm?


----------



## RVT1K

Derrel said:


> I recognize the lens as a 1980s / 1990s style Tamron Adaptall-II,but is that the 300 F 2.8 or the 400 mm?




That would be the 400mm that I got at an estate sale. 
You've answered several of my questions about it in a different thread that I started, its the one with the fungus in it.


----------



## ebyelyakov

AlanKlein said:


> I use a Sony 1"  20mb RX100iv that I keep in my pocket.  My back loves me.  Sony's latest  is the RX100vii.  I make slide shows for a 75" UHDTV that look magnificent including 4K movies the same camera takes.  What do you do with your pictures after you take them?  That would help define what camera you should use.  PS, when i'm shooting and contemplating my navel, I use a RB67 medium format film camera that weighs a ton loaded up with Velvia 50.  But that's not for vacations or travels or parties and things like that.  When I take out my film camera, my back grunts.
> Here're some samples with the RX100iv. American Southwest 2018 - Digital



Considering how versatile this little box is, there is no excuse not to carry it most of the time.


----------



## NGH

I switched from Canon dSLR to Olympus mirrorless a few years back as the weight was just becoming painful.  I have not regretted it one little bit.
I'm just an amateur so had nobody else to please with my choice of kit so that aspect was easy,  I narrowed down my list and then rented a couple of options before I decided.


----------



## zulu42

AlanKlein said:


> . PS, when i'm shooting and contemplating my navel, I use a RB67 medium format film camera that weighs a ton loaded up with Velvia 50.


Let's see some of those MF shots of your navel!
On second thought...


----------



## n614cd

I figure the Canon 5D IV and EOS R are about the same.
The Canon 5D is 890g
EOS R is 600g

300g is a nice chunk of weight. 
It will take years; but if you like fast lenses in theory the shorter flange distance will reduce the number of groups, glasses and other complexities in the lenses.
That is where the real weight savings will be.

Tim


----------



## Solarflare

While telephoto lenses tend to get heavier.


----------



## ecphoto

I got a mirrorless 6 months ago, I haven't touched my DSLR since.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle100

ecphoto said:


> I got a mirrorless 6 months ago, I haven't touched my DSLR since.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk



same here
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## TWX

I'd like to help beat this dead horse a bit...

I've had my Canon EOS 77D, a 24 megapixel camera with Canon's DIGIC 7 processor, for several months now.  I bought it because I had no experience with mirrorless and didn't really know anything about it.

My wife was tired of me leaving the 77D on various manual settings or with random lenses on, she couldn't just pick it up and take pictures.  I bought her a *cheap* Canon EOS M100 a couple of weeks ago as an early Christmas present.  Camera is about as stripped-down of on-body controls as you can get, almost all of the settings are through on-screen menus, but the heart of the M100 is the same 24 megapixel sensor with dual-pixel autofocus and same DIGIC 7 processor as that 77D.

I've played with the M100 a bit now, both with the 15-45mm EFM kit-lens for outdoors/bright light settings and with my 24mm f/2.8 EFS pancake lens on an adapter for indoors/darker lighting, and based on using that 24mm, we went out and bought the 22mm f/2 EFM pancake lens for indoors shooting.  Both the native zoom lens and native prime lens are wonderful, and are incredibly small and easy to carry, providing excellent image quality simply because the lens designs don't have to leave an extra full inch between the lens and the sensor to make room for the mirror, and for the APS-C sensor, aren't based on designs that might originally have been for full-frame and don't use a mounting-flange designed to clear a 36mm by 24mm sensor.  In short, being sized for the sensor and without a mirror, everything can be smaller and can still produce image quality rivaling the same sensor on a Canon DSLR.

I love shooting with my 77D, but had I known what mirrorless was about back when I was camera shopping, it's very likely I'd have ended up with either an M5, M6 with add-on viewfinder, or an M50, and not with another DSLR.  But because I'd had years of hobbyist experience with a Rebel XS, I went with what was familiar in camera body size, and as such I have a fairly large camera backpack full of moderately large lenses.  I won't be replacing the 77D anytime soon, and arguably there are still plenty of situations where I'd have to go with an EF or EFS lens and an adapter to get the right lens for the right setting, but I'd probably still be ahead of the game in size and weight even if I had to carry that adapter for decent telephoto zoom or for that power-zoom-control 18-135mm for video.  Mirrorless is the direction of the future, so long as manufacturers figure out what they need.  Sony seems to have gotten it, Canon is on its way.  Others I couldn't say, but I suspect they're going to figure it out too if they still want to sell products.


----------



## bchalifour

Been using a Z7 for the past year. Best Nikon ever (since 1973!) on many levels. A few improvements since the Nikon S1 ! ;o)
[light body compared to other Nikon "mirror" DSLRs, real-time control of exposure in viewfinder (I cannot do without anymore) plus tons of other options and information straight in the viewfinder (being able to see square and in black and white for instance). The 35 mm f 1.8 that I had for my D800 works perfectly with the adapter... and I can use all my other Nikon glass (as well as Leica).... a dream !


----------



## ecphoto

mpldenco said:


> Looking for some opinions on buying a new camera body. I'm feeling a bit weighed down by the literal weight of the camera system and the amount of equipment I have. I am looking to lighten up a bit by paring down what I have and upgrading my Nikon D810 camera body. I have Nikon lenses which I love so I think I want to keep them but I'm not totally sure. Is it worth it to get a new DSLR or should I be switching to mirrorless? And if I do switch to a Nikon Z6 or Z7 in order to keep some of my lenses, are there cons to using adapters to get them to work? Or should I try to get Z mount lenses instead down the line? Just starting to think about this and I'm open to suggestions! Thanks.


I bought an Olympus OMd mirrorless earlier this year. I haven't touched any of my Nikon DSLR gear since. The EVF is amazing! Touch to focus and capture changed my life! I've been carrying a body, 3 lenses, two Speedlites and triggers and it feels like my pack is empty.

Others that are Canikon fanboys will probably disagree with me, but if you go mirrorless buy into a system that is established and has their stuff figured out. Canon and Nikon are late to the party and they are playing catch up. Panasonic and Olympus share a format and have years and years invested into the M4/3 system. Sony has some amazing gear and bodies too.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## TWX

ecphoto said:


> Others that are Canikon fanboys will probably disagree with me, but if you go mirrorless buy into a system that is established and has their stuff figured out. Canon and Nikon are late to the party and they are playing catch up. Panasonic and Olympus share a format and have years and years invested into the M4/3 system. Sony has some amazing gear and bodies too.



I'll bite, what is Canon lacking in at this point?


----------



## ecphoto

TWX said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others that are Canikon fanboys will probably disagree with me, but if you go mirrorless buy into a system that is established and has their stuff figured out. Canon and Nikon are late to the party and they are playing catch up. Panasonic and Olympus share a format and have years and years invested into the M4/3 system. Sony has some amazing gear and bodies too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite, what is Canon lacking in at this point?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can find all the features you need. My point was that they didn't release their first MILC until 2012. They started late and haven't innovated very much either. They let mirrorless take a back seat and are paying for it now. Olympus and Panasonic started working on mirrorless in 2008 and that was an extension of their FT standard that they've been working on for almost 20 years. True in body shift IS isn't standard on all Canon MILC, lousy digital IS sucks. All I'm saying is you end up paying more for technology that hasn't been fully developed yet. You get more for your money from Panasonic, Olympus and Sony. They have invested heavily in mirrorless and it's truly the focus of their core business. Canikon doesn't see the true value in the mirrorless market, in my opinion.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ac12

TWX said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others that are Canikon fanboys will probably disagree with me, but if you go mirrorless buy into a system that is established and has their stuff figured out. Canon and Nikon are late to the party and they are playing catch up. Panasonic and Olympus share a format and have years and years invested into the M4/3 system. Sony has some amazing gear and bodies too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite, what is Canon lacking in at this point?
Click to expand...


It depends on what YOU need to shoot with.  I am not familiar with Canon, but here are the Nikon lenses that are still missing in the Z landscape.

No native Z 70-200/2.8.  It is on the roadmap for release in 2020.

Nothing longer than the 50-250/4.5-6.3.  

No macro lenses.
To fill these gaps, you have to use an F lens via the FTZ adapter.
This is OK, IF you have the F lenses.
But if you are coming into the Z system from another brand, you don't have the F lenses to use on the Z cameras.  So you have to buy a F lens and use it via the FTZ adapter, rather than a native Z lens.

Nikon has a multi-year roadmap for their Z lenses (but nothing showing after 2020).  
https://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Nikon-Z-mount-Nikkor-lens-roadmap.png​Canon has a similar multi-year roadmap for their R system lenses (but nothing showing after 2019).
https://www.bestcameranews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/canon-rf-lens-roadmap-2019.jpg​Both roadmaps have gaps in the landscape, which presumably will be filled after the displayed map ends.
This is the same Situation that Sony was in when they introduced their cameras.  They had the camera but a very sparse lens landscape.  It took Sony years to build a decent lens landscape.  

Both again have an underwhelming APS-C mirrorless system.  Adequate for daytime shooting consumers, but push the light limits and you hit the wall with the slow lenses.  This is the SAME situation as their dSLR line.


----------



## beagle100

ecphoto said:


> TWX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others that are Canikon fanboys will probably disagree with me, but if you go mirrorless buy into a system that is established and has their stuff figured out. Canon and Nikon are late to the party and they are playing catch up. Panasonic and Olympus share a format and have years and years invested into the M4/3 system. Sony has some amazing gear and bodies too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite, what is Canon lacking in at this point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you can find all the features you need. My point was that they didn't release their first MILC until 2012. They started late and haven't innovated very much either. They let mirrorless take a back seat and are paying for it now. Olympus and Panasonic started working on mirrorless in 2008 and that was an extension of their FT standard that they've been working on for almost 20 years. True in body shift IS isn't standard on all Canon MILC, lousy digital IS sucks. All I'm saying is you end up paying more for technology that hasn't been fully developed yet. You get more for your money from Panasonic, Olympus and Sony. They have invested heavily in mirrorless and it's truly the focus of their core business. Canikon doesn't see the true value in the mirrorless market, in my opinion.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


yes, be sure to pay the most for "developed technology"  - -  very important
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## TWX

beagle100 said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TWX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others that are Canikon fanboys will probably disagree with me, but if you go mirrorless buy into a system that is established and has their stuff figured out. Canon and Nikon are late to the party and they are playing catch up. Panasonic and Olympus share a format and have years and years invested into the M4/3 system. Sony has some amazing gear and bodies too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite, what is Canon lacking in at this point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you can find all the features you need. My point was that they didn't release their first MILC until 2012. They started late and haven't innovated very much either. They let mirrorless take a back seat and are paying for it now. Olympus and Panasonic started working on mirrorless in 2008 and that was an extension of their FT standard that they've been working on for almost 20 years. True in body shift IS isn't standard on all Canon MILC, lousy digital IS sucks. All I'm saying is you end up paying more for technology that hasn't been fully developed yet. You get more for your money from Panasonic, Olympus and Sony. They have invested heavily in mirrorless and it's truly the focus of their core business. Canikon doesn't see the true value in the mirrorless market, in my opinion.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, be sure to pay the most for "developed technology"  - -  very important
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
Click to expand...



Even more interesting to me is what Canon's newest 32 megapixel sensor may deliver beyond sheer resolution.  I read an article from October that called it a game-changer that basically renders everyone's 24 megapixel sensors obsolete, specifically citing its advantages over Sony's APS-C offerings.

I've never used that sensor, and I suspect that most of us haven't used that sensor, whether we're pro- or anti-Canon.  That's part why my opinion would be to see if there's a good way to try it out, given how expensive new cameras are.


----------

