# Switching to mirrorless from DSLR (Nikon D7000)



## ulrichsd (Sep 1, 2021)

Hi all, I started with a D90 and upgraded to a D7000 that I've had for the last 8 or so years and it has served me well. I have been wanting to upgrade to a full frame (for improved depth of field and newer model) and have had my heart set on upgrading to a D750 and adding something like the Nikon 200-500mm lens (and keeping the D7000 as a 2nd body).

However, I was wondering if I should consider Mirrorless, as the Z5 is comparable price to the D750. I have never had much of an issue with the size and weight of the D7000. But might be a bonus if going to mirrorless as opposed to going up in size to a full-frame DSLR.

My current F-mount lenses are:
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (DX) - second most used lens, but will no longer autofocus after a drop accident  
Nikkor 35m (DX) - my most used lens 
Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 (DX) - I bought it as a vacation lens, but don't really like it as it is too inconsistent in image quality
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 (FX)
Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 (FX)
Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (FX) - main tele lens
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 (FX) - rarely use

As you can see, I have a few FX lenses, so not sure if that should influence my decision. Any other factors I should be considering? In addition to the size benefit and silent operation of mirrorless, It just feels like it is the future direction that photography is moving in. I'm wondering if I do go mirrorless, are there any of these lenses I can use and avoid buying new Z lens equivalents?

My primary photography is family photos, family portraits, kids sports, nature and landscape photography. Rarely used for video.

Thanks,
Scott


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Sep 1, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> I have been wanting to upgrade to a full frame (for improved depth of field and newer model) and have had my heart set on upgrading to a D750 and adding something like the Nikon 200-500mm lens (and keeping the D7000 as a 2nd body).



The D750? great strategic move, upgrade… but not for depth of field
improvement as you will gain nothing in that regard.

That body will bring along better lowlight in a greater dynamic range.


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 1, 2021)

NS: Nikon Shooter said:


> The D750? great strategic move, upgrade… but not for depth of field
> improvement as you will gain nothing in that regard.
> 
> That body will bring along better lowlight in a greater dynamic range.



Thanks! I thought that a full frame compared to a crop sensor at the same aperture had a shallower depth of field?  But nice to have the newer technology, bigger viewfinder, better low light - all important as well!

But to be honest, I'm just ready to upgrade, probably early 2022 (after Christmas expenses) so figured I'd start looking  Full frame was where I was thinking, but then I thought it would be good to see what advantages mirrorless would offer. To be honest, I think it would be an adjustment looking at a screen and not through a prism/mirror, but you probably get used to it.

I'm open to any camera and lens suggestions, maybe total budget $2-3k.

Thanks!


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Sep 1, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> … but you probably get used to it.



Me? No way, DSLR for ever! Each his own I guess.


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 1, 2021)

NS: Nikon Shooter said:


> Me? No way, DSLR for ever! Each his own I guess.



Probably right! 

So D750 it is...

and my eventual lens upgrades are probably:
Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 - for wildlife
Nikon 20mm f/2.8 - probably good enough for me for general wide angle (I was used to 12mm, which would be a 18mm ff equivalent)
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 micro - I don't currently do a lot of macro, but would be nice to have the option and could double as a portrait prime

Would the D7000 be worth keeping as a backup body and to use for the telephoto for the crop sensor? Or would the D750 cropped offer better images (in which case I might just sell it)?


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 1, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Thanks! I thought that a full frame compared to a crop sensor at the same aperture had a shallower depth of field?


You thought right. All else equal you'll get shallower DOF from a larger sensor.


ulrichsd said:


> But nice to have the newer technology, bigger viewfinder, better low light - all important as well!
> 
> But to be honest, I'm just ready to upgrade, probably early 2022 (after Christmas expenses) so figured I'd start looking  Full frame was where I was thinking, but then I thought it would be good to see what advantages mirrorless would offer. To be honest, I think it would be an adjustment looking at a screen and not through a prism/mirror, but you probably get used to it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 1, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Probably right!
> 
> So D750 it is...


You should at least make the effort to handle and take a few snaps with the mirrorless option. You're right that the future is moving in that direction and mirrorless will eventually supplant the DSLR.

There are some real advantages to the mirrorless switch although some disadvantages as well. The mirrorless use more battery power and you'll have to get used to carrying more batteries and making sure they're charged. You note a desire for a 20mm lens. That's what first made me switch to mirrorless. I was shopping for a new APS-C system and I started that job the way I was first taught by shopping for lenses. My first lens priority was a 14mm. Finding that lens then took me to the mirrorless camera. Without the need to clear the mirror cage mirrorless cameras are designed with a closer flange to sensor distance. This makes it possible to design superior wide angle lenses. Right now if you wanted a 20/21mm lens for a DSLR you'd have to settle for a lens with some distortion. Watch for Nikon to soon provide a distortion free option for the Z line cameras.

That closer flange to sensor distance also means you can mount just about anything to a mirrorless camera. You're also considering a 105mm micro lens. For $50.00 I mounted an old 60mm Rodagon enlarging lens to my mirrorless camera to use for close-up/macro work. That Nikon 105mm might be as good, then again.

Auto focus for mirrorless cameras is more accurate. The PDAF sensors are on the sensor. Focus peaking ability in mirrorless cameras is a nice feature.

Bottom line you need to handle one and try it out.


ulrichsd said:


> and my eventual lens upgrades are probably:
> Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 - for wildlife
> Nikon 20mm f/2.8 - probably good enough for me for general wide angle (I was used to 12mm, which would be a 18mm ff equivalent)
> Nikon 105mm f/2.8 micro - I don't currently do a lot of macro, but would be nice to have the option and could double as a portrait prime
> ...


----------



## photoflyer (Sep 1, 2021)

I strongly suggest you go mirrorless.  I did and while I still shoot my DSLR as a second body, the mirrorless is so far superior in almost every way.  I actually did NOT get my mirrorless because it was mirrorless, I got it because the AF and the built IS made more of the investment I'd made in glass.  Now that I have had it for a year I am totally sold.    I won't list the reasons, they are numerous, I simply will say that I have yet to find anyone who has a mirrorless built in the last two years that regrets getting it (though I am sure they exist).    

No, mirrorless will not improve your technique.  If you haven't developed an eye for what makes a good photo, no camera on the planet will help.  But, it does improve your chances for getting the shot you envision.


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 2, 2021)

Ysarex said:


> You should at least make the effort to handle and take a few snaps with the mirrorless option. You're right that the future is moving in that direction and mirrorless will eventually supplant the DSLR.



Which mirrorless camera do you have? It seems like a good time to consider switching systems if I were going to do so. 

However, from what I've read it sounds like my FF / AF-S lenses should focus with any of the Z bodies? So I could realistically use the 24-120mm and 70-300mm with an adapter. Which would leave me wanting probably both the Z lenses for 14-30mm (and eventually a 50mm prime 85mm prime).



photoflyer said:


> I strongly suggest you go mirrorless.  I did and while I still shoot my DSLR as a second body, the mirrorless is so far superior in almost every way.  I actually did NOT get my mirrorless because it was mirrorless, I got it because the AF and the built IS made more of the investment I'd made in glass.  Now that I have had it for a year I am totally sold.    I won't list the reasons, they are numerous, I simply will say that I have yet to find anyone who has a mirrorless built in the last two years that regrets getting it (though I am sure they exist).
> 
> No, mirrorless will not improve your technique.  If you haven't developed an eye for what makes a good photo, no camera on the planet will help.  But, it does improve your chances for getting the shot you envision.



Thanks, I appreciate the recommendation. Do you have a system recommendation? Nikon, Cannon, other?

My technique is good enough for me as  a non-professional. I am happy with my family photos and get compliments, but I am not interested in ever doing this for money, for me this a fun hobby and being the dad who takes and shares nice pictures from the soccer games 

All that said, I guess that would point me toward a Z5, which the main negative I can see is the 4.5 fps, which would be slower than 6fps of my D7000.

Thanks!
Scott


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 2, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Which mirrorless camera do you have? It seems like a good time to consider switching systems if I were going to do so.


I upgraded from a Canon 5dmkii (DLSR) to a Fuji X mirrorless camera in 2013. Since then I've add a Nikon Z7 and Leica SL, both mirrorless, and upgraded my Fuji to the XT-2 and XT-4.

I use the Nikon Z7 with both new Z lenses as well as older lenses via adapters. Because of the ease of mounting various lenses on mirrorless cameras I do a lot of switching of all my lenses between the various bodies.


ulrichsd said:


> However, from what I've read it sounds like my FF / AF-S lenses should focus with any of the Z bodies?


Nikon sells an adapter for older lenses. Depending on age and features, you get various functions using the FTZ adapter.


ulrichsd said:


> So I could realistically use the 24-120mm and 70-300mm with an adapter. Which would leave me wanting probably both the Z lenses for 14-30mm (and eventually a 50mm prime 85mm prime).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 2, 2021)

I was looking to see how much I could sell some of my older lenses... My 80-200 af (push/pull model)... since it won't focus with the new Z lens system and I'm assuming that even a slower telephoto paired with a slower Z tele, would focus better with the high ISO performance than that of my current D7000 with the 80-200, so not having much benefit (plus I rarely use it). 

Checking selling prices on Ebay, looks like I could sell them for:
$300 Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AFD FX
$100-150 Sigma 18-250mm DX
$100 Nikon 35mm AFS DX

Any reason I shouldn't sell these, other than sentimental value  and put towards a purchase of a Z5, FTZ adapter and a Z14-30mm?

I was looking at Canon's RF lens lineup and their only 50mm prime lens is a f/1.2 costing $2300?  I thought $600 for a Nikon Z f/1.8 was expensive. Also, I expected a wider range from Canon, but at first glance I prefer Nikon's z lens lineup, plus it is nice that they list everything that is in development on their website as well so you know what is coming...


----------



## ac12 (Sep 2, 2021)

For me, mirrorless brings one important advantage:
You can SEE your exposure in real time, and adjust it BEFORE you press the shutter.
This really helps when you are shooting in difficult lighting, that the camera's meter can't handle.
On my dSLR, I have to shoot then look at the back screen, make an adjustment, shoot again, and repeat, until I get it to what I want.  Sometimes I can do it with one adjustment, sometimes I need several adjustments.
This is the one feature that I miss when I shoot my dSLR.

I primarily shoot an Olympus m4/3 system.  
BUT, for field sports (football, soccer and lacrosse), I shoot a Nikon D7200 + 70-200/4.  The reason is the LENS.  Olympus does not have a lens that handles as well as that Nikon 70-200/4, on the field.  So the lens drives the camera.

If you shoot sports and action, you want a fast frame rate.  If not, for me it does not matter, as I am shooting in single shot mode.
For sports, generally FASTER is better, with certain conditions.  I shoot my Olympus at 19fps, BUT that creates a HUGE pile of pics to sort through.  So I usually drop it down to 10fps (or slower), and only put it up to 19 for certain sports (tennis and baseball/softball).


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 2, 2021)

ac12 said:


> If you shoot sports and action, you want a fast frame rate. If not, for me it does not matter, as I am shooting in single shot mode.
> For sports, generally FASTER is better, with certain conditions. I shoot my Olympus at 19fps, BUT that creates a HUGE pile of pics to sort through. So I usually drop it down to 10fps (or slower), and only put it up to 19 for certain sports (tennis and baseball/softball).



Thanks, I appreciate all the suggestions! I will definitely keep my D7000, and may continue to use that for sports, since it has a crop sensor body and 6 fps. I do kids soccer, but I'm not getting paid and not selling pictures so I'm not worried about "missing the shot" as I'll always end up with some good pictures after a game 

If only the Z5 had a little higher frame rate, like 6+ it'd be perfect, but reading some reviews everything else seems good to go. I might wait for some black friday deals.

Thanks!


----------



## photoflyer (Sep 2, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Thanks, I appreciate the recommendation. Do you have a system recommendation? Nikon, Cannon, other?


I have a Canon R6 but Nikon certainly has good mirrorless options: I've seen several forum threads that extol their capabilities.

I want to be clear, I still shoot my DSLRs all the time.  It really just depends on whether the risk of what I'm doing warrants taking a brand new $2500 body or a 12-year-old $150 body.  But tonight I'll go back to the high school football game and definitely use the R6.


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 2, 2021)

photoflyer said:


> I have a Canon R6 but Nikon certainly has good mirrorless options: I've seen several forum threads that extol their capabilities.
> 
> I want to be clear, I still shoot my DSLRs all the time.  It really just depends on whether the risk of what I'm doing warrants taking a brand new $2500 body or a 12-year-old $150 body.  But tonight I'll go back to the high school football game and definitely use the R6.



Great, thanks! Yes, I figure now is the time to look before locking into a new mirrorless system, but the fact that I'm used to the UI and can use some of my existing lenses on a Nikon mirrorless body is a nice bonus (and always keep the D7000 as a 2nd body).


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 3, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> I was looking at Canon's RF lens lineup and their only 50mm prime lens is a f/1.2 costing $2300?  I thought $600 for a Nikon Z f/1.8 was expensive. Also, I expected a wider range from Canon, but at first glance I prefer Nikon's z lens lineup, plus it is nice that they list everything that is in development on their website as well so you know what is coming...



I wanted to correct my statement, the Canon page was confusing and where I was looking did not list their RF f/1.8 lenses only the 1.2. I now see that they have a 5omm RF1.8 in addition to the RF 1.2... and the Canon RF 1.8 is both less expensive ($200) and smaller than the Nikon 50mm 1.8 ($600), but it has half the lens elements. Sounds like the Nikon is an excellent quality lens, but I have no doubt that the Canon RF 1.8 would be perfectly acceptable (similar to the more traditional Canon and Nikon FX 50mm 1.8 lenses, like what I currently have).

Nikon Z5 is $1300 (+$800 w/ 24-200 zoom), but I'm comparing it to the Canon options:
Canon EOS RP for $1000 or Canon EOS R for $1800
and extra for either the regular RF 24-105 (+$300), RF L 24-105 (+ $1100) or 24-240 (+$900)

The biggest concern I've been reading about the Canon's is the battery life, but I don't think it would be a deal-breaker.

I really don't like my Sigma 18-250, because it is inconsistent in sharpness (it is the only lens I've used that I am unhappy with the results), but if I could get a superzoom travel lens that actually gave consistently acceptable images, then I'd definitely be interested.

If I'm going to switch systems (from Nikon over to Canon mirrorless), then now is the time as ultimately I'd end up with a set of mirrorless lenses. Maybe wait until the new Canon RP markii comes out and see the reviews on that one.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 3, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Thanks, I appreciate all the suggestions! I will definitely keep my D7000, and may continue to use that for sports, since it has a crop sensor body and 6 fps. I do kids soccer, but I'm not getting paid and not selling pictures so I'm not worried about "missing the shot" as I'll always end up with some good pictures after a game
> 
> If only the Z5 had a little higher frame rate, like 6+ it'd be perfect, but reading some reviews everything else seems good to go. I might wait for some black friday deals.
> 
> Thanks!



For FAST frame rate on a mirrorless, the issue is the electronic shutter, and how it is implemented, if it is.
The 19fps on my Olympus is with the e-shutter, not the mechanical shutter.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 3, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> I wanted to correct my statement, the Canon page was confusing and where I was looking did not list their RF f/1.8 lenses only the 1.2. I now see that they have a 5omm RF1.8 in addition to the RF 1.2... and the Canon RF 1.8 is both less expensive ($200) and smaller than the Nikon 50mm 1.8 ($600), but it has half the lens elements. Sounds like the Nikon is an excellent quality lens, but I have no doubt that the Canon RF 1.8 would be perfectly acceptable (similar to the more traditional Canon and Nikon FX 50mm 1.8 lenses, like what I currently have).
> 
> Nikon Z5 is $1300 (+$800 w/ 24-200 zoom), but I'm comparing it to the Canon options:
> Canon EOS RP for $1000 or Canon EOS R for $1800
> ...



If you are looking at Canon, then also look at Sony.
Sony has a more mature system of both cameras and lenses than either Nikon or Canon.

But you got to handle the Sony.  Some HATE the feel and/or the UI of the Sony.


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 3, 2021)

ac12 said:


> If you are looking at Canon, then also look at Sony.
> Sony has a more mature system of both cameras and lenses than either Nikon or Canon.
> 
> But you got to handle the Sony.  Some HATE the feel and/or the UI of the Sony.



Thanks! I've been looking at both Canon and Sony bodies and lenses.... I think since I plan to keep the D7000 as second body and have a few compatible lenses and SB-600 speedlight, it probably makes sense to stay with Nikon, especially since the Z5 seems like a pretty capable camera. I would start with getting the 14-30 and 24-200 lenses, and that would be it for a while so not a big deal that they have limited lens offerings at the moment. Its nice that they list on their website the upcoming lens releases, and by the time I'd be ready to get any of those (most likely longer telephotos) they'd be out.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 25, 2021)

Quote:  The biggest concern I've been reading about the Canon's is the battery life, but I don't think it would be a deal-breaker.

As I mentioned in the other thread, "get used to it."

As for battery life, or lack of life, get used to it.  Mirrorless cameras use the battery faster than dSLRs.  From what I've figured out, mirrorless battery life is primarily dependent on power ON time, not the number of shots (as it is with a dSLR).
With the same camera, I've shot almost 2,000 frames on one battery, with plenty of capacity left over, and I've drained the battery shooting less than 800 frames and had to switch to the backup battery.
If you learn to power down when not shooting, your battery life will be longer.  

And it is not just the batteries, but the chargers and charging process.  On my last vacation with an Olympus EM1-mk1, I brought three batteries, and two chargers.  I should have brought FOUR batteries, as each battery lasted about 4 hours of CONTINUOUS use.  I charged the batteries in two shifts; two batteries as soon as I got to the hotel, and the 3rd battery overnight.

YOU will have to test YOUR camera (on a simulated vacation/trip) to determine what YOUR battery life is, before going on a vacation/trip.
This will tell you how many batteries and chargers you will need.

Just for comparison.  I can shoot my D7200 all weekend on a single charge.  And, I have NEVER used my spare battery, as a spare.  After about 80,000 frames, the spare replaced the worn out original battery.


----------



## greybeard (Apr 26, 2022)

I upgraded from my d7000 to a D750/w 24-120 a few years back.  I saw an big improvement in image quality.  I later traded the D750 up to a D850.  I really had no need of 46mp, the camera was quite a bit heavier and all in all the D850 was just too much camera for me and my needs.  I also bought a Z50 as my travel camera and was blown away with the size, handling and IQ of the Z50.  I got strapped for cash last summer and sold the D850 and most of my FX lenses.  As much as I like the Z50, I'm sure the IQ from the Z5 is even better and, you can't go wrong with a D750 either.


----------



## mrca (Apr 27, 2022)

I swithched to SENSORLESS.   Cameras are lighter and my digital lenses work, except the mamiya medium format that weighs in 2 or 3 times a dslr.  I have 3 hour developing turn around, in my bathroom and using the d850 for 46 mp scans.


----------

