Mirror less or DSLR?

[Batmeat]

I’m consolidating and going to upgrade my camera. Will be selling my Nikon D7200 and D3S.

aside from smaller size and video improvement, is the mirrorless camera the way to go? Battery life on them sucks right now. I would likely sell my cameras now and wait for the Nikon Z8.

 

[ElFenix]

cruddy battery life and i'm not sure i like EVFs from the little that i've played with them. SLRs with the mirror locked up can do pretty much all the same thing except fit into a medium sized pocket.

 

[turtile]

I’m consolidating and going to upgrade my camera. Will be selling my Nikon D7200 and D3S.

aside from smaller size and video improvement, is the mirrorless camera the way to go? Battery life on them sucks right now. I would likely sell my cameras now and wait for the Nikon Z8.

I also use Nikon so I'm debating whether to add a Nikon D780 or Z6. The D780 is basically DSLR with same AF and sensor as the Z6 mirrorless. They both have a dual gain system so higher ISO is better.

The main advantages or mirrorless are the lenses which are cheaper given the image quality, across the sensor AF and the built in stabilization. DSLRs still focus faster but all of the points are in the center of the frame.

 

[Batmeat]

Forgot about the stabilization of the mirrorless, which is awesome. Doesn’t have to be incorporated into the lens.

 

[ElFenix]

Forgot about the stabilization of the mirrorless, which is awesome. Doesn’t have to be incorporated into the lens.

that's not inherent to mirrorless, canon and nikon have just been protecting margins.

i know, it's not worth talking about products that aren't really on the market, unless you want to buy a pentax (or an old sony or olympus).

the canon R5 is the first camera from them that i've thought matches the "F everything, we're doing 5 blades" satirical op-ed from the onion a couple decades ago (and, of course, gillette did them one better and actually went with 6).


edit: poor pentax


edit2:

The main advantages or mirrorless are the lenses which are cheaper given the image quality,

damn near every sony E lens is more expensive than its canon EF counterpart.

 

[Batmeat]

Good lenses are inherently expensive. It’s one of the reasons I’m sticking with Nikon. I have a lot of lenses that should I go mirrorless I can just buy the Z/F mount adapter

 

[turtile]

that's not inherent to mirrorless, canon and nikon have just been protecting margins.

damn near every sony E lens is more expensive than its canon EF counterpart.

DSLR sensor stabilization is not the same as mirrorless. Only the mirror is seen on DSLRs so the sensor will record a different frame than what is seen from the viewfinder if it's stabilized.

While the lenses might be more expensive, the quality, especially wide open is way ahead. To create lenses of this quality on current DSLR mounts would probably cost a lot more.

 

[Staples]

I have a Sony a6400 mirrorless (like $900) with a few expensive lenses. It is nice and all but I feel CMOS sensors were great 10-15 years ago. Still picture quality hasn't gotten much better since. Video, auto focus speeds and accuracy and burst rates are the things that have been getting better over the last 10 years. I think current gen iPhones are great at video and I have a GoPro current gen which is decent too.

Doesn't answer your question

 

[gradoman]

I'd say yeah, go mirrorless, but wait for Nikon's next entry if you want to stick with Nikon.

EVFs have been improving, battery life, while not on par with DSLRs, is pretty good on recent entries (I shoot for hours on the A7III, sure the A7II requires aggressive time-out, power-off to last, but can make it for a good number of shots), PDAF that goes across the entire frame without needing to hold the camera away from your face to use live view, smaller, lighter bodies, and most times adapters to use any lens you want. Video is a wash these days with the newer DSLRs having mirrorless functionality with their mirrors flipped up.

Even the new Canon DSLR works better in live view, their upcoming mirrorless is looking like a beast and they said they're not going to continue making DSLR lenses, so you can sort of see where this is going. Sony, Panasonic, Fuji are all on the mirrorless train. Nearly end of the line for DSLRs improvements.

Of course that doesn't mean you have to give them up.. People use film to this day. (I got a Rolleicord as a gift and I shoot that from time to time and if I have time to think, it's enjoyable)

I hope I made sense.

 

[Batmeat]

Even the new Canon DSLR works better in live view, their upcoming mirrorless is looking like a beast and they said they're not going to continue making DSLR lenses, so you can sort of see where this is going. Sony, Panasonic, Fuji are all on the mirrorless train. Nearly end of the line for DSLRs improvements.

I came to his conclusion last night. Will be waiting for the Z8, but will list my cameras tonight for sale.

 

[Moggy]

Good lenses are inherently expensive. It’s one of the reasons I’m sticking with Nikon. I have a lot of lenses that should I go mirrorless I can just buy the Z/F mount adapter

Canon/Nikon/... all have some good lenses that are not all inherently expensive, don't let others talk you into sales; "newer=better", I don't think so.
Main advantage of Nikon; I have over 200 Nikon lenses and a lot of them are +20y old and very usable and they give great quality too. I find picture outcome of my $130, 20y old 105mm 2.5 a LOT better than any super fast $2000 lens (yes, I have them too)

PS with these mirrorless + adapter for "normal" lenses you are throwing away your biggest benefit; small and lightweight.
Oh wait; are there really good small lenses especially suited for mirrorless, yet?? hmmm, 2 or 3 maybe (that is counting Fuji film, Nikon, Canon, Sony together!)

 

[ElFenix]

PS with these mirrorless + adapter for "normal" lenses you are throwing away your biggest benefit; small and lightweight.
Oh wait; are there really good small lenses especially suited for mirrorless, yet?? hmmm, 2 or 3 maybe (that is counting Fuji film, Nikon, Canon, Sony together!)

a fast and/or long lens isn't going to be small and lightweight regardless. people on the internet like to complain about how big each new lens is but wouldn't get caught dead shooting a kit lens (which tend to be small and lightweight).

 

[Moggy]

True.
My point is that people using any sensor format even smaller than DX, should use the appropriate lenses for their system, not FX lenses where a lot of the glass/weight/size is wasted/not used for this small sensor size...
I'm not complaining about big lenses; I also use a 200mm f/2.0...
PS the 18-55mm kit lens is an underestimated cheap, light AND a quite good lens in the Nikon line up. No, it's not a fixed f/1.2 but that is not it's purpose, I use it at family parties and get great results.... I don't even try using my 200/2.0 there.

 

[ElFenix]

it's always about the right tool for the job, but my oh my i do i see a lot of complaints about "you're missing the point of mirrorless if you're not releasing small lenses" from people who won't consider purchasing an f/4 lens. it's like people thought removing the mirror was going to make every lens the size of a 50 year year old M lens, forgetting that the M lens doesn't even have auto aperture, let alone autofocus, and vignettes like crazy because it was designed for film (which really doesn't care what the angle of incidence is).

 

[Moggy]

it's always about the right tool for the job, but my oh my i do i see a lot of complaints about "you're missing the point of mirrorless if you're not releasing small lenses" from people who won't consider purchasing an f/4 lens. it's like people thought removing the mirror was going to make every lens the size of a 50 year year old M lens, forgetting that the M lens doesn't even have auto aperture, let alone autofocus, and vignettes like crazy because it was designed for film (which really doesn't care what the angle of incidence is).

take a DX lens in your left hand, now take exactly the same equivalent FX lens (! range and comparable f-stop !) in your right hand
... they differ in size and weight... a LOT... the same goes for a mirror less vs FX
In the same way I don't use a 40 ton truck to drive my kid to school or a Ferrari to haul cement blocks

 

[ElFenix]

take a DX lens in your left hand, now take exactly the same equivalent FX lens (! range and comparable f-stop !) in your right hand
... they differ in size and weight... a LOT... the same goes for a mirror less vs FX
In the same way I don't use a 40 ton truck to drive my kid to school or a Ferrari to haul cement blocks

since you're clearly a nikon guy i have some bad news for you

 

[Moggy]

since you're clearly a nikon guy i have some bad news for you

Thanks
But this was my starting point quote; "people using any sensor format even smaller than DX, should use the appropriate lenses for their system "
So I was rather thinking in the lines of smaller sensor (DX and <DX) mirrorless or DX camera's (and people putting FX lenses on that)

 

[ElFenix]

leica in comparison:

Thanks
But this was my starting point quote; "people using any sensor format even smaller than DX, should use the appropriate lenses for their system "
So I was rather thinking in the lines of smaller sensor (DX and <DX) mirrorless or DX camera's (and people putting FX lenses on that)

which basically leaves micro 4/3? most of those lenses are pretty petite but once you get to fast glass the size is just as big as glass for 135 format. for example, the olympus 45/1.2 clocks in at 410 grams and 70 mm diameter. the canon 85/1.8 (which is a full stop faster equivalence-wise) is 425 grams and 75 mm diameter. granted, the olympus is part of the pro line while the canon isn't, but don't sleep on the 85/1.8.

the olympus 35-100 f/2 was 1.65 kg and 213x96 mm. compare the canon 70-200 f/4L IS at 980 g (actual mass with hood and tripod ring) and 183x80 mm. that olympus was a beast of a lens but heavier and wider than the equivalent canon (and also cost 2x as much, though volumes play into that). it was as heavy and almost as big as the canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS!
olympus recently said it wasn't going to make more f/2 zooms because it defeated the purpose of the system.

 

[Paladin3]

Make more images with whatever camera you have and be happy.

 

[MrSquished]

You can't beat micro 4/3 for size to IQ

 

[NAC]

If you shoot sports or action, DSLR is still better I believe. Even a mid-range DSLR will likely perform as good or better than the best mirrorless. And it is much easier, IMO to use the optical view finder to follow action. Since you have D3S, is that in your repertoire?

If you are not shooting action, then I think mirrorless is the way to go. Smaller chance of missed focus shots due to mirror / phase focus alignment issues. Depending on your choices, it can be smaller and lighter.

Personally, if you want to get a full frame mirrorless Nikon, I'd keep the D7200. You'd have a better sports camera with more range for when you want it. Or at least keep it until you are happy that the Z8 replaces it entirely.

 

[Moggy]

I’m consolidating and going to upgrade my camera. Will be selling my Nikon D7200 and D3S.
aside from smaller size and video improvement, is the mirrorless camera the way to go? Battery life on them sucks right now. I would likely sell my cameras now and wait for the Nikon Z8.

Hi,
How's it going?
Have you decided yet, I'm curious about your experiences!

I also have a D7200 and D3s and wouldn't change that for a mirrorless. If I need something small, I will use my phone, is just my idea. Maybe in some years when a Z8 + lens will be 200$ secondhand I might have this as a second fun option, but for now... my photo quality is better than my ability with the D7200 & D3s...
Moggy

 

[CuriousMike]

Those camera size comparison are... disingenuous. If you want to ignore the EVF eyecup (and they've removed the eyecup from the D800... WTF ?! Holy unfair and bias) then sure.

Mirrorless bodies are smaller than their DSLR counterparts.
The lenses typically are not, irrespective of the manufacturer. Physics is physics.
(The 24-70 f/2.8 Nikon for mirrorless is smaller than the F mount counterparts and significantly sharper. Google could expand if you so cared.)

 

[ElFenix]

Mirrorless bodies are smaller than their DSLR counterparts.
The lenses typically are not, irrespective of the manufacturer. Physics is physics.

we were talking about lens weight. so not disingenuous.

 

[CuriousMike]

we were talking about lens weight. so not disingenuous.

I jumped the gun, you are correct.

Unfortunately, a lot of systems don't fill out their DX range for lenses. Nikon is definitely bad for that.