# Reasons I Like/Dislike Mirrorless



## JTPhotography (Feb 7, 2019)

Dislike

1.  Battery life
2. No dual cards
3. Can’t compose shot without turning camera on
4. I don’t have T Rex hands
5. AF is crap

Like

1. Will eventually drive down the price of real camera gear.


Feel free to add to the list


----------



## Jeff15 (Feb 7, 2019)

On my G9

1. Battery life is great
2. Dual card not a problem
3. AF works just fine
4. About one third of the weight of my Nikon gear...


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 7, 2019)

Good digital viewfinders eliminated the need for optical viewfinders that require mirrors which make for larger and heavier cameras.


----------



## ac12 (Feb 8, 2019)

Each has it's place.
I migrated for most of my photography to micro 4/3 (mirrorless), because of the significant weight and size reduction.
But I still use a dSLR for fast sports.


----------



## D7K (Feb 8, 2019)

I went from a D40 to D7000 then sold up and went to Sony a7ii. I couldn’t get onboard with it, balance was awkward with bigger lenses, battery was terrible, never had any af issues or anything but it just wasn’t comfortable for me so I sold up and went to back to DSLR.  To each their own, I’d guess maybe I’ll look into the next gen Nikon Z but I’m in no hurry, I love the D850.


Sent from my mobile device because I’m either outside or too lazy to get my MacBook..


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 8, 2019)

G9 number of shots: 380
D850 number of shots: 1850


----------



## Jeff15 (Feb 8, 2019)

G9 number of shots: 380

Where did you get this information.....


----------



## Fujidave (Feb 8, 2019)

On my Fuji X-T3 on one battery charge I can clear over 1,000 shots.
It has two card slots.
AF is fantastic.
Always have a spare battery too and SD cards.

On my X100F
One card slot but not fussed.
AF is great.
Have spare battery too.
Can take over 700 shots on one charge.
I love my lightweight X cameras.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Feb 8, 2019)

Let's be honest, a mirror flapping about inside the body is 1950's technology.  It should have died out with ground glass screens, twin lenses, light meters,  bellows and trilbies with 'Press' labels in the hatband.

With the latest mirrorless cameras able to match dslr's for action focussing, and beat them in other areas, the only reason to have a mirror is if you shoot film, or when shaving.

There are mirrorless bodies with two card slots, and the physical size of dslr's, if that's what you need.  This race is now over.

Canon and Nikon know that - that's why they released new mirrorless models.


----------



## Jeff15 (Feb 8, 2019)

Trouble is Nikon and Canon have a lot of catching up to do...


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 8, 2019)

1. Insane max shutter speeds / complete silent shooting operation where it may be critical.
2. exposure constant preview.
3. faster fps with some then any DSLR on the planet.
4.depending on make/model much less conspicuous and much better choice for street  and travel photography and many are small enough to fit in a small bag or a large jacket pocket depending on the lens.
5. Not to have to mess with back focus or front focus issues is a god send, not that mirrorless is perfect they can have there own set issues but the fine tune crap is a pita especially with zoom lenses setting up  charts sucks just makes me feel so warm and fuzzy and oh what a freaking joy it is. I rather have brain surgery.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Feb 8, 2019)

Jeff15 said:


> Trouble is Nikon and Canon have a lot of catching up to do...



Yes, but the Z6 and Z7 have significantly narrowed the gap.  Just needs some more lenses and some small improvements in spec (and a lower price!).


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Feb 9, 2019)

Lordy, another my camera is better than yours/my camera will always be better than yours thread... 

We insist that it's the photographer and not the camera... So how come we don't compare photographers then?

Two photographs, two photographers, two cameras, a D850 and a Z7, and I bet we launch into a discussion of the automation and programming, how the OVF is better than the EVF, how the confidence of two card slots is equally visible in the photograph. We compare cameras, we look for the difference in the cameras that makes photo "A" easier to achieve, we set out to prove that it is indeed the camera after all, (_it is our intelligent and independant choice as a photographer to use these features that defines photography, we are still in control, it's still the photographer... _).

Automation is so good that monkeys can take pictures, monkeys have taken pictures.

I'm beginning to wonder about the sanity on certain forums, all they ever discuss is how the camera works to the n'th degree of automation. They don't seem to see beyond the camera and what *it* does, trying define photography by the logic of the camera. I sometimes wonder if they actually see photographers or photographs at all and whether their world has morphed into something equivalent to "The Matrix" where they look through viewfinders and just see a steady stream of numbers rolling down...  



JTPhotography said:


> 3. Can’t compose shot without turning camera on



You need to turn any digital camera on in order for it to work, especially if you're relying on AF when composing...


----------



## D7K (Feb 9, 2019)

Get what works for you for the reasons it works for you. Simple. You don’t buy Nike because of sponsors or great reviews, you don’t Levi because they’re cool and hip again, you don’t drink Carlsberg because it’s the best beer in the world (it isn’t) ... each photographer owns a tool that allows them to capture and utilise their vision freely, easily and with confidence...  this thread should be locked 


Sent from my mobile device because I’m either outside or too lazy to get my MacBook..


----------



## OldManJim (Feb 9, 2019)

This thread is why forums die......


----------



## dennyr (Feb 9, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> Let's be honest, a mirror flapping about inside the body is 1950's technology.  It should have died out with ground glass screens, twin lenses, light meters,  bellows and trilbies with 'Press' labels in the hatband.
> 
> With the latest mirrorless cameras able to match dslr's for action focussing, and beat them in other areas, the only reason to have a mirror is if you shoot film, or when shaving.
> 
> ...



I am kind of a Film Snob AND an SLR Snob.....but i would think you are correct.
Mirror-less, as it relates to modern day Digital 35mm is the future, at least i would think so.

They  (mirror-less) are still somewhat "new" at this point. But in another 10 years, i get the feeling that a new production     Digital SLR will be more  "obsolete"  than film is now.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Feb 9, 2019)

I remember when I started on this forum and I had an nex-7 I felt like I was a bit of an outsider. Mirrorless was almost a bad word.


----------



## cgw (Feb 10, 2019)

I like ‘em because they get cheap NOS so damn fast.


----------



## zombiesniper (Feb 10, 2019)

JTPhotography said:


> Dislike
> 
> 1.  Battery life
> 2. No dual cards
> ...



I don't own one but not all of the mirrorless have the problems you dislike.

1. This can be an issue but not on all cameras.
2. Again some do.
3. Probably same with all but don't know.
4. Not all mirrorless are that small. Some are near same size as my 7dMK2
5. Some have excellent Af. I know of two that kill my 7dMK2.

Sounds to me like you just chose the wrong camera for your needs.


----------



## Fujidave (Feb 10, 2019)

JTPhotography said:


> Dislike
> 
> 1.  Battery life
> 2. No dual cards
> ...



So out of interest, what camera do you have if you think it might be crap ?


----------



## zombiesniper (Feb 10, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> I sometimes wonder if they actually see photographers or photographs at all and whether their world has morphed into something equivalent to "The Matrix" where they look through viewfinders and just see a steady stream of numbers rolling down...



Are you trying to tell me, when you see a photo, there's more than ISO, Aperture and shutter speed? Crap! I think I'm missing out!


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 10, 2019)

Lighten up guys, it’s just a discussion.

And while you may disagree with me, my opinion carries weight. I won POY here a few years ago. I have a photography book published by a university press. 

I have tried shooting mirrorless and I absolutely hate it. All technical stuff aside, there is something to be said for having a camera that is comfortable in your hand and held to your eye.

I just picked up a used d600 with 7k clicks for a couple hundred bucks on eBay to use as a back up and for certain travel situations.


----------



## Fujidave (Feb 10, 2019)

JTPhotography said:


> Lighten up guys, it’s just a discussion.
> 
> And while you may disagree with me, my opinion carries weight. I won POY here a few years ago. I have a photography book published by a university press.
> 
> ...



I think it`s a good discussion, I can think of two people who use mirrorless and could win a POY on here too.


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 10, 2019)

A lady wanted to try holding my DSLR when i had the Tamron 150-600 on and said good god no right away.LOL


----------



## Fujidave (Feb 10, 2019)

DarkShadow said:


> A lady wanted to try holding my DSLR when i had the Tamron 150-600 on and said good god no right away.LOL



The reason I switched from Canon to Fuji was my Sigma 150-600mm just got to heavy.


----------



## Fujidave (Feb 10, 2019)

So you now have a D600, but out of interest what mirrorless was crap ?


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 10, 2019)

The D600 no doubt has a cracking good sensor but the AF system of the D7000 crop body is really crap and pretty much blind in very low light. still a great image maker though and there dirt cheap now and if it starts slinging spit balls you can send it in for a shutter replacement maybe even a new D610


----------



## Fujidave (Feb 10, 2019)

This is only me or how I`d do it.
If I ever had a camera and I hated it and thought OMG this is crap, then I`d say what camera it was just in case a new comer got one and wasted money, instead of just saying why it`s crap but like I said that`s just me


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 10, 2019)

Fujidave said:


> This is only me or how I`d do it.
> If I ever had a camera and I hated it and thought OMG this is crap, then I`d say what camera it was just in case a new comer got one and wasted money, instead of just saying why it`s crap but like I said that`s just me



The mirrorless I used was a Sony a7II. No issues with the image quality I just don’t like the experience in general. That doesn’t help a newcomer because they don’t have the slr experience that I have to compare it against.


----------



## davidharmier60 (Feb 11, 2019)

The mirrorless I have (Sony NEX-5N) has no flash. 
The DSLR I have (CanonXTi) has a decent pop up flash and excepts my Vivitar 2600D.
Also I have several lenses for the Canon. Also it reminds me of the AE-1 and the EOS650 I used to shoot.
For me the DSLR is a big win!


----------



## greybeard (Feb 11, 2019)

I like different things about each design.  I purchased a D850 about a month 2 mo ago but it was a close race between it and the Z7.  I do feel that the D850 will be the last dSLR that I buy and my next purchase will be a high resolution mirrorless in about 5 years or so.


----------



## waday (Feb 12, 2019)

dennyr said:


> They (mirror-less) are still somewhat "new" at this point.


This is a common statement that I hear, and I just don’t get it.

The first (commercially available) mirrorless came out in 2004. The iPhone came out in 2007 (just for a point of reference). Look how far the iPhone has come, and I wouldn’t consider the iPhone to still be “new” at this point.

I’m curious how long mirrorless cameras have to be out until people stop claiming them to be “too new” as their reason not to purchase. Or, as the OP has claimed, for them to be a “real” camera.


----------



## mapleleaf56 (Feb 12, 2019)

JTPhotography said:


> Dislike
> 
> 1.  Battery life
> 2. No dual cards
> ...


----------



## mapleleaf56 (Feb 12, 2019)

I recently trade all my Nikon gear for Olympus 4/3rds and couldn’t be happier..The Omd Em1 mark 2 is incredible. Sure it doesn’t have the pixel count of my traded D800 but to be perfectly honest I don’t need all those pixels I’m not a Pro making a living from photography. I love bird photography and to not have to carry a D800 and Nikon 200-500mm around plus a tripod with gimbal head is a joy.. did I mention the insane image stabilization this camera has ! Coupled with the  stabilization of the 300F4 and 1.4 teleconverter that’s 840mm hand holding !
I use the excellent 12-100mm F4 for everything else.. it’s even got me back into my home made studio.. Exciting times are ahead and sure there will always be the need for some people to want a big clunky dslr but the future is bright the future is mirrorless .
So people by all means chose the system that works for you but please don’t be ignorant and make comments like the OP about real cameras..
My Olympus is real very real and very very good..


----------



## SquarePeg (Feb 12, 2019)

JTPhotography said:


> Lighten up guys, it’s just a discussion.
> 
> And while you may disagree with me, my opinion carries weight. I won POY here a few years ago. I have a photography book published by a university press.
> 
> ...



Maybe the ergonomics of that particular mirrorless weren’t right for you.   Have you used or tested any others?  I believe Jc likes the Fuji XH line because they fit his hands better and it feels more dslr-like.  I like my Fuji Xt2 for it’s smaller size but, having never used a full frame, I can’t really compare the feel of it to some of the bigger nikons and canons.  To each her own... as for your original reasons why, I think Fuji has conquered many of them.



JTPhotography said:


> Dislike
> 
> 1. Battery life.  ** I agree it’s lacking but spares are small and lightweight and not terribly expensive
> 2. No dual cards.  ** Fuji has 2
> ...


----------



## dennyr (Feb 12, 2019)

waday said:


> dennyr said:
> 
> 
> > They (mirror-less) are still somewhat "new" at this point.
> ...


I can only speak for myself, but......did you read The Rest of my post...??
Your quote makes it sound like i said  "No" to renewable energy, because i used the word  "No" in a pro renewable speech.
They ARE  "new" in the context of my (entire) post. The Huge Bulk of "professional" 35mm Film cameras  did not transition from SLR to Mirror-less, They transitioned from SLR to SLR.
At this point there are Millions more SLR than mirror-less, in the realm of  "Professional Photographers".
Did you ever shoot a press conference.? There is a reason they were so noisy for the last 50 years.
I am not claiming them to be too Anything for Anybody not to buy them.
Your post is the first time i have heard anybody say that in the last 3-4-5 years.
But just to refresh your memory on what i DID say.......
"Mirror-less, as it relates to modern day Digital 35mm is the future, at least i would think so.
They (mirror-less) are still somewhat "new" at this point. But in another 10 years, i get the feeling that a new production Digital SLR will be more "obsolete" than film is now."


----------



## waday (Feb 12, 2019)

dennyr said:


> did you read The Rest of my post...??
> Your quote makes it sound like i said "No" to renewable energy, because i used the word "No" in a pro renewable speech.
> They ARE "new" in the context of my (entire) post.


I did, and I tend to agree with your post. But, that doesn’t mean that I can’t disagree with your wording choice.  While they (mirrorless) may be the most recent technology of the ones you’ve referenced, I wouldn’t call them new.

I agree with a post earlier in this thread: that these threads are the reason forums die. And the reason I’ve been staying away from forums lately. Arguing over technology and semantics is pointless. I’d rather be out shooting.


----------



## SquarePeg (Feb 12, 2019)

waday said:


> dennyr said:
> 
> 
> > did you read The Rest of my post...??
> ...



But when you can’t get out to shoot or want to slack off from work, you can’t beat arguing on a photo forum about personal opinions!


----------



## dennyr (Feb 12, 2019)

Some of these responses seem very odd to me.  
There must be something going on that i am not aware of. 
Why this thread, or others like it would cause the death of The Forum is beyond me.
I am not sure if i have even read this entire thread...but i thought the purpose  was to discuss WHY a person does or does not like a certain camera.
  That scenario is ONE of the reasons a forum like this exists.
Gear, is a HUGE talking point.....whether it be guitars, cars, guns or cameras.

On the other hand, if you Guys/Gals are saying there is a divide, name calling, or choosing of sides.....where a person that prefers an SLR is a "loser"...or behind the times, stuck in the past, Etc etc.......i can understand the problem. I am not aware of that going on here, but i am new to this place.

Anyway.....at the risk of repeating myself. I said the no mirror is.......Relatively New. I am not saying they just started selling 3 years ago.
However, compared to the SLR, beginning with the Nikon F.....the arena of 35mm camera sales have been dominated by the SLR until...once again...relatively recently. The no mirror had teething problems with heat and reliability, they had catching up to do with glass, etc etc.
Whatever "problems"  they might have had at one time, i would say they have well conquered  circa 2018.

I would think  (until a new technology takes their place)  that no mirror 35mm will dominate the "Professional" camera market for the foreseeable future.
If i somehow gave the impression that i was down-talking or doubting the legitimacy of no mirror cameras, i apologize.

FWIW.......I do not even own a digital camera. I have no bias one way or the other where Mirror Vs No Mirror is concerned.
I shoot film because i am an older person, i already have those types of cameras; and as a hobby, film allows you the unique opportunity to print.
Other than for myself, I do not think film is "better" than digital or any other format.


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 12, 2019)

I think it's a good discussion and lots of valid points brought up, I own both DSLR and M4/3 Mirrorless for different purposes and love both systems and regardless of mirror or no mirror both systems have pros and cons. No one has to be restricted to only a DSLR or only a mirrorless system. I bought a Panasonic  m4/3  well knowing the short battery life so i got a extra battery and also knowing it only comes with in camera charging so i bought a travel wall charger so i can charge outside of the camera.Also knowing it's smaller to handle so bought a optional grip now my biggest peeves all solved.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Feb 12, 2019)

dennyr said:


> Why this thread, or others like it would cause the death of The Forum is beyond me.



Any thread that gets to 4 pages of light hearted debate about cameras is unlikely to cause the death of furum.

People not posting causes forums to die.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Feb 12, 2019)

Even as a fan of mirrorless since the Lumix G1, I have to say I do like the mechanical feel of a dslr.  The clap of the mirror and the shutter noise reminds me of my old slr film days.

I have set my X-T2  (which incidentally has a mock prism housing to make me feel even more at home) to auto electronic shutter, but whenever I get the beep rather than a real mechanical shutter, I feel cheated somehow.

My phone makes a noise like Leica rangefinder when I take a shot, most satisfying.


----------



## waday (Feb 13, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> dennyr said:
> 
> 
> > Why this thread, or others like it would cause the death of The Forum is beyond me.
> ...


Light-hearted debate, maybe. It can quickly turn sour. Or, repetitive.

There’s a reason why this site has rules against film vs. digital debates. So far, the mirrorless vs. mirror debate hasn’t been too bad. It’s been worse on other forums.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 13, 2019)

wake me up when the exposure triangle becomes a square...  a camera is a camera.


----------



## D7K (Feb 13, 2019)

Braineack said:


> wake me up when the exposure triangle becomes a square...  a camera is a camera.



Another impactful statement floated there


----------



## Braineack (Feb 13, 2019)

I'm full of them.


----------



## D7K (Feb 13, 2019)

Braineack said:


> I'm full of them.



I'd noticed


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 14, 2019)

JTPhotography said:


> Dislike
> 
> 1.  Battery life
> 2. No dual cards
> ...



Have you bothered to look at the spec sheet for the A7RIII and the A9?  Both have dual memory card slots.  AF isn't crap, it's slightly behind my Pentax but has full sensor coverage, which my Pentax 645Z doesn't have.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 14, 2019)

thereyougo! said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Dislike
> ...



I don’t like being bothered.


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 14, 2019)

JTPhotography said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...



What?


----------



## DigiFilm (Feb 15, 2019)

I love my m4/3, but freely admit it self-identifies as a D800.


----------



## Tolyk (Feb 16, 2019)

I absolutely love my A9. Haven't run into a single dislike about it. My previous camera, the A7r had very limited battery life, but was a remarkable camera in many other ways.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Feb 17, 2019)

The OP mentioned he tried the a7ii out and hated it and compared it to what he was used to. I think that’s a big part of the equation. I’m a carpenter and have tools that I’ve spent a lot of time using and even if a manufacturer came out with a tool that was better in some ways I probably wouldn’t ditch my tool because I know it intimately and am so used to how it works and feels. Even if I did switch it would take a long time to get used to that new tool.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2019)

This thread! Buy the Sony A7ii and the 28-70mm OSS zoom for just under $1,200.
Sony A7ii | B&H Photo Video


Evaluate the state of f-f Sony mirrorless five years ago....


----------



## Adadrian (Aug 26, 2019)

i prefer DSLRs but I'm a dinosaur i prefer film as well haha 

but I'm no fool i know mirrorless is the future and will eventually make DSLRs dead and for enthusiasts like film photography.


----------



## petrochemist (Aug 26, 2019)

JTPhotography said:


> Lighten up guys, it’s just a discussion.
> 
> And while you may disagree with me, my opinion carries weight. I won POY here a few years ago. I have a photography book published by a university press.
> 
> ...



I know a mirrorless shooter who won a national competition . 

You tried a mirrorless camera  & didn't like it, but a different mirrorless might have been fine for you. I've tried DSLRs that are not comfortable in my hand.

Both systems work well & each has it's benefits but the DSLR benefits are no longer as many fold as they were. I still use both, but my latest mirrorless can AF with 1950s glass something no DSLR can manage, so the DSLR is getting used less & less. If I could afford a long native telephoto for the A7ii I might even retire the DSLR.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 26, 2019)

Derrel said:


> This thread! Buy the Sony A7ii and the 28-70mm OSS zoom for just under $1,200.
> Sony A7ii | B&H Photo Video
> 
> 
> Evaluate the state of f-f Sony mirrorless five years ago....



that package is $998 now.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 26, 2019)

prices keep dropping, time keeps passing…


----------



## JoeW (Aug 26, 2019)

As usual, I'm arriving to this party a day (or week) late and after all the good booze is gone so I'll be munching on the remnants of mixed peanuts and some ginger ale.

I get why some people are enthusiastic about mirrorless.  I think the "correct" answer is to say that a camera is just a tool.  And you choose the right tool for the job.  There are plenty of "jobs" where a mirrorless camera is a superior tool, particularly where weight of the tool and carry-ability is a priority--a DSLR isn't even in the ball game there.  But I think that mirrorless fans make too little of perspective  and viewfinders.  I know it's easy to say that mirrors are going the way of the dodo bird.  But there are some instances where a digital depiction of what you see just doesn't work as well versus actually seeing what your camera is pointed at.  

For those where the limitations of mirrorless don't matter (you don't need to worry about battery life), and the pros (weight or FPS) matter a lot, then you'd be a fool not to go with mirrorless.  For others where the view matters or battery life is critical (like you're going on a photo safari in the field, expect to take 1,000+ photos over 2 days and no, you won't be able to recharge during that time) then a DSLR may seem like the ONLY answer (not a preferred one).


----------



## RVT1K (Aug 26, 2019)

I'm not in a position to change from my DSLR but I am intrigued by the mirrorless technology. It just seems like the way to build a digital camera to me if you were starting from scratch. 

But I do have to say that to me the size/weight issue isn't one. Any camera body with a 70-200 f/2.8 hanging from it will be heavy. And for me, that is what I'm using much of the time. Saving a few ounces on the body will not make much difference to me. The potential blazing frame rate is another matter, though...


----------



## Braineack (Aug 26, 2019)

a mirrorless FF camera with a 70-200 2.8 hanging from it will be heavy.

the mirror/prism inside a DSLR is pretty light...


----------



## Derrel (Aug 26, 2019)

about a month ago I had the opportunity to briefly handle the new Panasonic 24 megapixel full frame mirrorless... it has styling cues that make it look a lot like a digital single lens reflex… I believe that the two new full frame mirrorless  models from Panasonic are the two newest Mirrorless offerings on the marketplace


----------



## markjwyatt (Aug 26, 2019)

I love my Fuji XT-2 mirrorless. Before this I mainly shot film SLRs, TLRs, and recently 35mm rangefinder as well as film and digital point and shoots. When I bought the XT-2, it was my re-entrance to more "serious" photography last year. At the time I thought there was no more need for DSLRs (especially also given the existence of  cameras like the XPro2 with its OVF). Framing was perfect, for me no lag (for high speed sports, maybe still some issues), reminded me of shooting a film SLR. Great battery life, dual cards, etc. Focus did take a little getting used to, but I got it and it is not a problem.

Now, one thing I am doing is copying slides (plus intending to digitize negatives also) on a Durst slide copier. This is one area I think the DSLR may still have a significant advantage- namely focusing on slides and negatives. I do not feel completely confident focusing with the EVF, but the magnification function does help. Of course with a DSLR, there is likely no optical magnification (maybe an eyepiece attachment?), so it may not be that much better.

For what it's worth- I do like discussions like this. This is a discussion board, and we can all learn things form these discussions even though they may get a little superficial at times (this one was just fine).


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Aug 27, 2019)

Nikon's departure from the F mount is my problem. May as well buy medium format.


----------



## markjwyatt (Aug 27, 2019)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Nikon's departure from the F mount is my problem. May as well buy medium format.



Except for the cost factor (presuming you are saying digital), which propagates throughout the system (base camera cost, lens cost, storage needs, etc.).


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2019)

Nikon has some eyepiece magnification accessories. I have one,a 1.7 x screw-in eyepiece magnifying accessory for the round eyepiece "professional cameras", as opposed to the entry-and intermediate-level cameras which use a rectangular shaped eyepiece. I believe they used to make a 6X swing away eyepiece magnifier for critical focusing needs, but has been at least a decade since I have seen any specifications for this device. So long in fact, That I am wondering if they still make this device.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2019)

Braineack said:


> a mirrorless FF camera with a 70-200 2.8 hanging from it will be heavy.
> 
> the mirror/prism inside a DSLR is pretty light...



 Around a decade ago or so ago, when the micro 4/3 format was introduced more or less in conjunction with the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera idea, A commonly counted benefit was "smaller and lighter", but this does not really hold true, in lenses, in the case of anything much longer than around 100 mm or so.  The Early and original idea of saving weight and size no longer holds much water, now that the leading manufacturers of Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have introduced full frame size sensor cameras in the case of Panasonic, Sony, Canon, and Nikon. The Sony A7 series cameras are now commonly held to be the most advanced, but this year Canon and Nikon have made tremendous strides, and Panasonic entered the full frame market a few months ago with two models of full frame mirrorless cameras.  About a month ago I happened to see the new Panasonic 24 megapixel full frame model with a nice zoom lens sitting on the counter of a Portland,Oregon store. The camera was the personal property one of the clerks who worked there,  and he allowed me to handle and examine the camera. Let me put it this way: this was no small camera, and the weight and size were substantial in both the body and the lens. I would say that it would be easily possible to purchase a smaller and lighter single lens reflex which would weigh less than this full frame Panasonic mirrorless.

 As far as lenses go, a decade ago there were very few "big glass" options available fot MILC cameras. Today? A relatively good number of lenses are now available,and those lenses are about the same size and weight as for traditional single lens reflex cameras.

there are other cameras besides those four I mentioned above, such as the the cameras made by Leica and by Hasselblad, as well as a few mezzo or medium-format digital mirrorless options (fuji g series)  which are pretty large cameras and which use relatively large and heavy lenses.

I think we need to consider that mirrorless  does not automatically mean  "smaller" nor "lighter".  it is no longer 2007


----------



## Braineack (Aug 28, 2019)

yes, everything is in relation to the size of the sensor.


----------



## Jeff15 (Aug 28, 2019)

There are none so blind as those who cannot see....................


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Aug 28, 2019)

Braineack said:


> yes, everything is in relation to the size of the sensor.



..... which is why I shoot APSC crop - and then mirrorless adds secondary benefits of info on screen in the EVF, true wysiwyg and less bulk, but at the cost of battery life.

There's always some compromises, but when I moved from my 35mm film SLR's to digital in the early days, the thought of still having a mirror seemed unnecessary to me, so I was an early adopter of mirrorless (Nikon, then Canon, then Lumix and now Fuji) - but I have to admit it's only in the past couple of years that I feel mirrorless can finally compete effectively with dslr's.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 28, 2019)

MILC cameras have improved markedly over the last three years. We are now at the point where pretty much a full kit can be assembled from at least two manufactures stable of MILC offerings


----------



## SquarePeg (Aug 28, 2019)

It all depends on what you value.  I value lighter weight and smaller size above having 2.8 available at all focal lengths.  If you are ok with shooting at higher ISO and dealing with a bit of noise, you CAN have a smaller kit.  The Fuji xt2 and 18-55 and 50-230 cover 99% of my needs, fit in a small bag or medium sized purse and are light enough for me to carry all day on a hike.

I never leave my kit at home due to weight or inconvenience anymore.   When I had a dslr and dslr sized lenses, I was frequently leaving them at the hotel when on vacation because I didn’t want to lug them around.  And that wasn’t even a giant full frame!  

You have to make a conscious decision not to get sucked back into the big lens mentality or you switch to mirrorless and end up right back where you were.


----------



## RVT1K (Aug 28, 2019)

Braineack said:


> yes, everything is in relation to the size of the sensor.



When comparing my D7000 to my D4...yes.
When comparing my gripped D7000 to my D4...not so much. 

I also like the way a big camera feels in my hand but I realize that is a personal preference.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 28, 2019)

One thing that no one has mentioned is the new lens design possibilities that are made possible with a different flange to focal length distance. For example the new Nikon F/1.8 for the Z series mirror lists… Read the reviews… This is an extremely good performer, better than any Nikon 50 to date… And the 24 mm to 70 mm Z series zoom… an extraordinary performer...I expect that as more Z-series lenses are released, we will see a significant increase in optical performance over lenses that were designed to be retrofocus for a moving mirror camera.
I think it will be most interesting to see the performance of Z-series wide angle prime lenses.


----------



## markjwyatt (Aug 28, 2019)

This is the same principle with film cameras. Rangefinder lenses, especially wider angle (guess <24mm) benefited greatly on the rangefinder, while retrofocus was needed on SLRs complicating the design.


----------



## markjwyatt (Aug 28, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> It all depends on what you value.  I value lighter weight and smaller size above having 2.8 available at all focal lengths.  If you are ok with shooting at higher ISO and dealing with a bit of noise, you CAN have a smaller kit.  The Fuji xt2 and 18-55 and 50-230 cover 99% of my needs, fit in a small bag or medium sized purse and are light enough for me to carry all day on a hike.
> 
> I never leave my kit at home due to weight or inconvenience anymore.   When I had a dslr and dslr sized lenses, I was frequently leaving them at the hotel when on vacation because I didn’t want to lug them around.  And that wasn’t even a giant full frame!
> 
> You have to make a conscious decision not to get sucked back into the big lens mentality or you switch to mirrorless and end up right back where you were.



I have been travelling a lot for work, and even my XT-2 + 18-55mm zoom is a bit much to pack for a primarily work trip (taken some personal trips also). I have mainly been taking my Contax iia, but sometimes I fall back to the Konica Big Mini HG. The Contax with the Voigtlander SC Skopar 21mm f4 mounted fits in my computer bag (about the size of a charging puck), plus I carry my Zeiss 50mm f2 Sonnar also, and a few filters. The Konica of course is the most compact, but has limitations.

I agree on the big lens with mirrorless. When I bought the XT-2 it had a 18-55 mounted, but I looked at the 18-135 also. I thought this does almost everything, but when I picked it up I realized it defeated the reason I wanted the mirrorless (size/weight), so ended up with the 18-55.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Aug 28, 2019)

Jeff15 said:


> There are none so blind as those who cannot see....................



If you cannot speak your mind don't clutter the thread. Speak up.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 28, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> It all depends on what you value.  I value lighter weight and smaller size above having 2.8 available at all focal lengths.  If you are ok with shooting at higher ISO and dealing with a bit of noise, you CAN have a smaller kit.  The Fuji xt2 and 18-55 and 50-230 cover 99% of my needs, fit in a small bag or medium sized purse and are light enough for me to carry all day on a hike.
> 
> I never leave my kit at home due to weight or inconvenience anymore.   When I had a dslr and dslr sized lenses, I was frequently leaving them at the hotel when on vacation because I didn’t want to lug them around.  And that wasn’t even a giant full frame!
> 
> You have to make a conscious decision not to get sucked back into the big lens mentality or you switch to mirrorless and end up right back where you were.



Agree.

I have a m4/3 system in two flavors.
Light/small and heavier/larger in both camera and lenses.
Which combination I choose to put together depends on the requirements of the shoot.
But it is really nice to be able to go light and small.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 28, 2019)

Dipped my toe in the mirrorless water with an X-T20.

*Loved:*
*size
*weight
*styling (so retro cool)
*imaging
*focus peaking
*WYSIWYG

*Did not love:*
*inability of adapted nikon glass to autofocus
*inability of adapted nikon glass to stabilize
*aps-c sized images (I'm a bit full-frame snobby)...
*one card

*Actively disliked:*
*way Photoshop handled x-sensor images.

Tho I had many great images, the wonky way that photoshop handled the fuji-x images ended the affair.  Saving for a Nikon Z6 now.  

Will keep my D7200 for wildlife, tho...


----------



## ac12 (Aug 29, 2019)

@Peeb 
Nikon lens does not AF on Olympus either, nor does the VR work.  And if the lens does not have an aperture ring, you can't set the aperture either.  It is COMPLETELY MANUAL.

Maybe the Nikon will function on a Sony.

But a Z6 + FTZ adapter is probably a better match.
Although you still have only ONE card slot.


----------



## shadowlands (Sep 5, 2019)

I sold all of my F-mount glass and DSLR's when I got my Z6. I'm in love. No looking back!
Saving my pennies for the Z 85mm 1.8 S next.


----------



## marmle (Mar 10, 2020)

I did consider upgrading to a mirrorless camera last year,  but after doing extensive comparisons opted for a DSLR because although the mirrorless cameras do have some advantages over DSLR's,  in my opinion they don't justify the price tag.  I am hoping that in time the price comes down,  then I may consider it.


----------



## Soocom1 (Mar 10, 2020)

I bought my Fuji X-M1 for 70.79 used and another $20 for the MD-FX adapter. 

Now I am almost using it exclusively over my Canon collection. 

I am still getting an occasional Canon accessory mostly because the other half is using her camera because she hasn't jumped ship yet. 

But the fact that I can use the Canon, Minolta, M-42 and almost every other lens I have (say the Hassy H and LF lenses) I am having fun! 

For me, the cost is a bit high (Fuji USA) but worth it in the long run.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Apr 22, 2022)

JTPhotography said:


> G9 number of shots: 380
> D850 number of shots: 1850



D780 number of shots: 2260


----------



## greybeard (Apr 25, 2022)

With every new generation of mirrorless, they get better by a rather large margin.  Right now things are pretty close to dead even.  The next generation of mirrorless should blow dSLR's out of the water.


----------



## ac12 (Apr 25, 2022)

greybeard said:


> With every new generation of mirrorless, they get better by a rather large margin.  Right now things are pretty close to dead even.  The next generation of mirrorless should blow dSLR's out of the water.



Mirrorless is doing that right now.

- The subject tracking on the Sony is fantastic. 
- Shooting at night with the light enhancing EVF on the Olympus lets you SEE your subject, where with a dSLR the subject is a shadow.  If you cannot put the AF point on the subject, using a flash won't work, you will have an out of focus subject.
- The ability to see your exposure and adjust it in real time, BEFORE you press the shutter, has helped me get more than a few good exposures in difficult lighting.  If I know the lighting will be difficult, I take the Olympus mirrorless, rather than my Nikon dSLR.
- The 60fps frame rate on the Olympus EM1-mk2, is what used to be just a fantasy dream.

There are more, but that is all I can think of on the top of my head.

The ONLY reason that I am still shooting my Nikon dSLR* is the lens.*
Olympus does not have a lens comparable to the Nikon 70-200/4, *with* *a zoom ring as light and easy to turn*.
When I shoot sports and am working the zoom ring constantly for 5 HOURS, a LIGHT zoom ring makes a BIG difference.
But that is the lens, not the camera.

However, mirrorless lags in power consumption, and I don't see it changing.  That is just the nature of the camera, you have an EVF that uses power.
A mirrorless camera uses more power than a similar dSLR.
In 15 years with dSLRs (Nikon D70 and D7200), I have NEVER used my spare battery on a shoot.
With my mirrorless, I HAVE TO carry spareS (note the PLURAL).  Depending on the camera/lens combo, and what/how I shoot, the battery could last as short as 2 HOURS.  My D7200 will go the entire weekend on a single charge.  The Olympus being a small camera has a smaller battery than the FF mirrorless, so this should be less of a problem for the FF mirrorless cameras.


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 26, 2022)

Going to throw in another comment into this. 

Recently I got a MFT and a NIK-MFT adapter. With that, I have been able to mount almost all of the lenses I have collected and with other aspects, the images using med. Format lenses on a MFT has opened up alot of other possibilities.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Jul 1, 2022)

JTPhotography said:


> G9 number of shots: 380
> D850 number of shots: 1850


 D780: 2260 shots


----------



## ac12 (Jul 1, 2022)

Kiron Kid said:


> D780: 2260 shots



My old Olympus EM1-mk1 shot over 2,000 shots, and still plenty of battery life left.

But the dSLR vs. mirrorless comparison by number of shots is basically flawed.
dSLR battery life is more dependent on number of shots.
Mirrorless battery life is more dependent on power ON time, not number of shots.
- I can shoot over 2,000 frames in 2 hours and still have plenty of battery power left.
- I can shoot less than 700 frames in 4 hours and have drained the battery.

So, I know of no good way to objectively compare battery life between a dSLR and mirrorless.


----------



## chickboom386 (Jul 14, 2022)

I'm beginning to wonder about the sanity on certain forums, all they ever discuss is how the camera works to the n'th degree of automation. They don't seem to see beyond the camera and what *it* does, trying define photography by the logic of the camera. I sometimes wonder if they actually see photographers or photographs at all and whether their world has morphed into something equivalent to "The Matrix" where they look through viewfinders and just see a steady stream of numbers rolling down... 

edit: spammy sig link removed.


----------



## RAZKY (Jul 18, 2022)

chickboom386 said:


> I'm beginning to wonder about the sanity on certain forums, all they ever discuss is how the camera works to the n'th degree of automation. They don't seem to see beyond the camera and what *it* does, trying define photography by the logic of the camera. I sometimes wonder if they actually see photographers or photographs at all and whether their world has morphed into something equivalent to "The Matrix" where they look through viewfinders and just see a steady stream of numbers rolling down...
> 
> edit: spammy sig link removed.


This is the camera forum, so naturally the discussion is camera equipment. Photography is discussed in the photo galleries.


----------

